|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:08 PM Original message |
Serious question about impeachment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:12 PM Response to Original message |
1. Warrantless wiretaps - illegal as sunday afternoon sin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:14 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Performed by the FBI. Not Bush. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ThomWV
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:17 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Performed by the NSA actually, but no matter - ever hear of the "Unitary Executive"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:22 PM Response to Reply #6 |
16. "Signing statement"--the Supremes will rule it has overriding force of law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:27 PM Response to Reply #16 |
23. They wouldn't go there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:50 PM Response to Reply #23 |
46. They most certainly WOULD. And Kennedy has become a "more reliable conservative." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:30 PM Response to Reply #3 |
27. So just because Nixon didn't actually break into... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:55 PM Response to Reply #27 |
48. You're forgetting they had tapes. And John Dean. And the potential for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:32 PM Response to Reply #48 |
67. But there were articles prepared against Nixon... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:39 PM Response to Reply #67 |
70. But not burglary. And I agree, you can impeach a ham sandwich for BEING a ham sandwich. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:56 PM Response to Reply #70 |
74. I understand your point... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 07:34 PM Response to Reply #74 |
77. Ewwww. Them's "Tony Snow" words! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 08:05 PM Response to Reply #77 |
80. I strongly disagree... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 08:25 PM Response to Reply #80 |
82. You assume investigation WILL uncover more evidence. What if it doesn't? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 08:57 PM Response to Reply #82 |
83. "Clinton's approval shot to the seventies"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 11:09 PM Response to Reply #83 |
85. Well, I don't want to get bogged down here, but his party didn't LOSE that election |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 11:24 AM Response to Reply #85 |
91. I totally understand your points... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 02:14 PM Response to Reply #91 |
92. I agree there WILL be more surprises, even though BushCo has worked hard to hide their sins |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:55 PM Original message |
FBI was typo. Remember, Nixon wasn't going to be impeached over the breakin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sir Jeffrey
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:36 PM Response to Original message |
69. You may be right about Nixon.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 02:51 PM Response to Reply #27 |
94. yep, and Hitler didn't kill anyone with his own hands, so if he had lived, we couldn't try him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 02:50 PM Response to Reply #3 |
93. he publicly confessed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:21 PM Response to Reply #1 |
12. Not only did Bush, himself, not do that, he covered his ass with a SIGNING STATEMENT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wiley50
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:13 PM Response to Original message |
2. Self-admitted violation of FISA laws FELONY, among others n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:19 PM Response to Reply #2 |
10. I want the "others". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:23 PM Response to Reply #2 |
17. Again, signing statement plus Supreme Court ruling = No Crime nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:14 PM Response to Original message |
4. The majority of Americans |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:57 PM Response to Reply #4 |
75. Why does nobody ever respond to this? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 07:45 PM Response to Reply #75 |
79. Well,like Al Gore's title |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ben_meyers
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 09:41 PM Response to Reply #75 |
84. Not to mention that the poll everyone uses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:17 PM Response to Original message |
5. The process STARTS with impeachment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MonkeyFunk
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:18 PM Response to Reply #5 |
8. no |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:21 PM Response to Reply #8 |
14. There is nothing substantive which is not already known |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. Signing statement. Supreme Court rules that it has full force of law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:28 PM Response to Reply #22 |
25. The Supremes would rule against signing statements |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:31 PM Response to Reply #25 |
28. Kennedy has sold his soul...he can't be counted on anymore |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:44 PM Response to Reply #25 |
39. You're sure about that, eh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:25 PM Response to Reply #8 |
20. Aw, stop making sense!! You're being LOGICAL!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:21 PM Response to Reply #5 |
13. Very incorrect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:22 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. He broke federal FISA laws |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:28 PM Response to Reply #15 |
24. He prepared a signing statement saying he didn't have to pay attention to that 'stuff' for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:29 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Calm down |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:00 PM Response to Reply #26 |
53. I'm quite calm. I can count though. 5-4 is 5-4. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:33 PM Response to Reply #15 |
30. Legally, that's not fully established yet. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:41 PM Response to Reply #30 |
35. Repeatedly lying to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:44 PM Response to Reply #35 |
40. Lying isn't illegal unless it's under oath. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:47 PM Response to Reply #40 |
43. What part of a crime not being necessary for impeachment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:00 PM Response to Reply #43 |
52. If not a criminal statute, then a "high crime" is required. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:04 PM Response to Reply #52 |
54. Well said. I do wish people would spend more time pressing the inhabitants of those 22 GOP Senate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jmowreader
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 11:57 PM Response to Reply #54 |
87. I thought about it, and I think we HAVE the 22 GOP senators |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 03:50 AM Response to Reply #87 |
89. For certain, sixteen of them plan to run for reelection. John Warner, though, I think has had it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:07 PM Response to Reply #52 |
57. Not that clear |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:45 PM Response to Reply #35 |
41. and which of those statements were made under oath? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:51 PM Response to Reply #41 |
47. OK, how about lying to Congress (Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:57 PM Response to Reply #47 |
51. Those are all from the SotU, right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:06 PM Response to Reply #51 |
55. They aren't "testimony under oath" either. He can lie to Congress all he wants, and the rest of us |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtrockville
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:17 PM Response to Original message |
7. Here's Elizabeth Holtzman's list (from 2006) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:12 PM Response to Reply #7 |
59. All of those are easily refuted by BushCo, though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jtrockville
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:55 PM Response to Reply #59 |
73. Of course criminals have excuses. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
immoderate
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:18 PM Response to Original message |
9. There doesn't have to be a crime. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
H2O Man
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:23 PM Response to Reply #9 |
19. You are correct. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #9 |
21. Generally there are definitions for the terms. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poiuyt
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:31 PM Response to Reply #9 |
29. Yes - Abuse of power is considered a "high crime" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:34 PM Response to Reply #9 |
31. You can impeach a ham sandwich. But if you don't convict, it goes down in history as a political |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:36 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. ahem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:19 PM Response to Reply #32 |
62. Well, what's that theme we hear so often? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:42 PM Response to Reply #31 |
36. Indeed, that's what *I'm* looking at right now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:44 PM Response to Reply #36 |
38. to *convict*, 67 Senators need to vote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:19 PM Response to Original message |
11. It's *Not* Well Defined - And He's Commited Glaring Crimes Anyway |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:38 PM Response to Reply #11 |
33. Warrantless wiretapping accompanied by a Presidential Signing Statement? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:41 PM Response to Reply #11 |
34. whoa, how'd the 4th Amendment get implicated? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:36 PM Response to Reply #34 |
68. US Citizen's Phones Were Tapped |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rodeodance
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:23 PM Response to Original message |
18. It does not have to be a crime in the sense of legal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:43 PM Response to Original message |
37. Well, if you ignore all of the reasons for impeachment, then there's no reason to impeach. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:45 PM Response to Reply #37 |
42. There is only ONE reason for impeachment--to remove someone from office. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:48 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. Drat! The terminological quibble-master has discovered me! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:21 PM Response to Reply #44 |
63. Well, I realize you're being clever, but that is the purpose. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_Leo_Criley
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:49 PM Response to Reply #42 |
45. there is no removal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
conscious evolution
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:55 PM Response to Original message |
49. International law IS US law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 05:57 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. And another good reason |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
conscious evolution
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:07 PM Response to Reply #50 |
56. There are no good reasons nor good excuses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:08 PM Response to Reply #49 |
58. Yes and no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:17 PM Response to Reply #58 |
60. Did you read Article 6? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:26 PM Response to Reply #60 |
64. An interesting aspect of that Article. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
conscious evolution
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:30 PM Response to Reply #58 |
66. We do have the authority to try here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:17 PM Response to Original message |
61. Obstructing Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:27 PM Response to Reply #61 |
65. Hmmmm. And Clinton wasn't convicted on that Article, either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
conscious evolution
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:48 PM Response to Reply #65 |
71. That is because the Senate knew they were bullshit charges. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:53 PM Response to Reply #71 |
72. Not really. That's because not enough Senators wanted Clinton to be forced out of office. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 07:17 AM Response to Reply #65 |
90. Clinton was Impeached though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 05:14 PM Response to Reply #90 |
95. Like I said, you can impeach a ham sandwich. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 06:58 PM Response to Original message |
76. Bush just committed a felony yesterday. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MADem
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 07:36 PM Response to Reply #76 |
78. Well, you have to prove the "corruptly" part. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lonestarnot
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 08:07 PM Response to Original message |
81. Did you by chance hear the State of the Union address with the 16 words? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Duer 157099
![]() |
Thu Jul-12-07 11:19 PM Response to Original message |
86. Obstruction of Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jack Rabbit
![]() |
Fri Jul-13-07 12:04 AM Response to Original message |
88. Do not confuse "high crimes and misdemeanors" with "felonies and misdemanors" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Mon Jun 24th 2024, 03:23 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC