Jurisprudence

Re: The charges, the true conservative, are among the many:

the true conservative — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:22:35 GMT

Bounder:

Deliberating creating an intelligence clearing house isdide the intelligence community which had as its mandate to FIND a reason to go to war and deliberated promoted data that the greater intelligence community labeled false.

The charge would be lying in order to start a war.

The charge would be rank failure to protect the interests of the United States once we moved into the occupation and rehabilitation phase of the Iraqi War Venture, exhibiting breathtaking incompetence or outright and self-serving corruption.

Of course there would be many other charges and none of them would be politically partisan in nature.

What you think and what I think, however, matter very little because the democrat dominated congress evidently lacks the will to carry out the 2004 election cycle mandate that they possessed.

On the other hand their refusal to act in accordance with the best interests of this nation and the laws of the land and the constitution and begin impeachment proceedings against Bush [so relax the true conservative, Bush will not be impeached], also will not matter in the long run because historians will make it very plain that the democrat leadership failed to do their job and that Bush should have been impeached, and they will teach these facts in high schools and colleges across the land.

The Bush era will go down in infamy along with McCarthyism.

Except that McCarthy was right, too. The State Department really was full of communists during the '40's and '50's. Or did you miss that part?

The charges, the true conservative, are among the many:

Bounder — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:38:12 GMT

Deliberating creating an intelligence clearing house isdide the intelligence community which had as its mandate to FIND a reason to go to war and deliberated promoted data that the greater intelligence community labeled false.

The charge would be lying in order to start a war.

The charge would be rank failure to protect the interests of the United States once we moved into the occupation and rehabilitation phase of the Iraqi War Venture, exhibiting breathtaking incompetence or outright and self-serving corruption.

Of course there would be many other charges and none of them would be politically partisan in nature.

What you think and what I think, however, matter very little because the democrat dominated congress evidently lacks the will to carry out the 2004 election cycle mandate that they possessed.

On the other hand their refusal to act in accordance with the best interests of this nation and the laws of the land and the constitution and begin impeachment proceedings against Bush [so relax the true conservative, Bush will not be impeached], also will not matter in the long run because historians will make it very plain that the democrat leadership failed to do their job and that Bush should have been impeached, and they will teach these facts in high schools and colleges across the land.

The Bush era will go down in infamy along with McCarthyism.

Re: No no no

Kat Hayes — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:42:09 GMT

I think that impeachment of the President of the United States or any other country's leader should always be carefully approched. Because it not only effects our country it also effects the world especially now with America in the position of hedgemond. Discussion of impeachment will have worldwide effects both positive and negitive. In so far as Postosi goes she is using intemadation to stop the discussion and vote of impeachment she is abusing her position as speaker to oppress the law. She is in a very dangeous position.Because she is third in line for the position of President of the United States, should something happen to the President and Vice President. The question that needs to asked here by the public do we want someone in the position of President that uses intemadation as a means of power against the people that have place their trust in her when she was elected to her position.

Re: No no no

Booger Bear — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:57:13 GMT

Excellent thinking and quality post.

Re: If you would read history books rather than just eat them, the true conservative,

the true conservative — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:10:15 GMT

Bounder:

then the pattern of unequal treatment would be glaringly obvious even to you.

The democratic president IS held to different standards than the republican president. Had Clinton performed a sixteenth as much in the way as incompetent mismanagement as Bush then Clinton would have been - again - investigated and then impeached in zero time.

People in Washington, however, and definitely the 'so-called liberal media' act as if the very notion of investigating Bush's actions and impeaching him is somehow hideously wrong.

Again, just what would it actually take for cons and con-apologists and nervous Nelleys to concede that 'yes' Bush has committed sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant serious investigations or impeachment? Apparently committing rape and murder in public by Bush is the only thing that would now force people to concede that a republican president needs to be scrutinized and punished by congress.

[shakes head, laughs]

I find it amusing that, for once, I'm defending Pelosi and Obama, but for once they are right.

You folks' disagreements with the president are political disagreements over how he is carrying out the duties of his office. That is not what impeachment is for. For political disputes, you must go through to political process.

Impeachment is designed to punish a president for exactly what the constitution says, "high crimes and misdemeanors". You know, things like lying under oath, selling government secrets, stealing government documents, using the IRS to punish political opponents, and the like. What you are proposing the democrats impeach Bush for would be like the GOP impeaching Clinton because they thought his nucleal deal with N. Korea was bad for national security.

Re: Impeach yesterday - ignore the cowards

no affiliation — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:51:15 GMT

As Den and many others have pointed out, Bush has committed impeachable acts. Therefore, he should be investigated. One cannot simply remove himself and his associates from the checks and balances that provide for our democracy.

If the House really felt as strongly as this article and the American people imply then they are just as irresponsible as Pelosi in their elected duties.

We were once a great superpower. Now we have a depressed military and dismal economic outlook. Many countries despise us. Why did the Kennedys get assassinated while people like Bush and Clinton get re-elected?

Re: Impeach yesterday - ignore the cowards

Paul_Revere — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:44:12 GMT

As a Liberal, anti-war protester, and leader of a Democrats in a western state county, I find it quite disappointing and appalling to see cowards here who are so afraid of impeachment of a criminal president and VP, calling it "political." What ignorant fools you are! Impeachment is the constitutional way of handling a president and vice-pres who are criminal.

Pelosi is absolutely wrong. Articles of Impeachment should have been introduced immediately after the November 2006 elections. Instead, cowards in Congress and weak citizens like those posting here continued to defecate in their pants, spines still not fully grown, afraid that the nation will split, and afraid that the political system will be damaged by a justifiable procedure. What a perfect storm of stupidity.

Re: No no no

ReligionExpired — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:05:10 GMT

Although I greatly admire Nancy Pelosi, I believe we took this off the table way to early. This aministration has far outreached the boundries of the executive branch through high crimes and misdemeanors and the congress is beholden to enforce the constitution.

Re: No no no

sicnarfe — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:31:40 GMT

You and Nasty Pill Lousy shouldn't have a deciding say in our American democracy. We, the majority, voted last November for change. We voted to have the clowns running this country do the right thing. We voted against the continued slaughter in Iraq for the sake of oil companies. Yet we have this neocon House leader informing us that the truly effective weapon to keep a dishonest executive from breaking out altogether is off the table. NP's action has re-energize the creeps to continue their illicit activities instead of putting fear in them. I'm calling for the Californian liberals mis-represented by her to mount a recall. She's a total waste.

To be, or not to be: That is the question:

Eljem — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:52:58 GMT

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?.........
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause...

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,...
....The law's delay, the insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes, ...

That dread of something.....puzzles the will...
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all...'

...And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

Hamlet, W.S.

If you would read history books rather than just eat them, the true conservative,

Bounder — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:49:53 GMT

then the pattern of unequal treatment would be glaringly obvious even to you.

The democratic president IS held to different standards than the republican president. Had Clinton performed a sixteenth as much in the way as incompetent mismanagement as Bush then Clinton would have been - again - investigated and then impeached in zero time.

People in Washington, however, and definitely the 'so-called liberal media' act as if the very notion of investigating Bush's actions and impeaching him is somehow hideously wrong.

Again, just what would it actually take for cons and con-apologists and nervous Nelleys to concede that 'yes' Bush has committed sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant serious investigations or impeachment? Apparently committing rape and murder in public by Bush is the only thing that would now force people to concede that a republican president needs to be scrutinized and punished by congress.

Re: Our nation was winning; nay, eager to impeach Clinton

the true conservative — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:18:01 GMT

Bounder:

over what amounted to rank partisan political nonsense and yet we should shudder back from impeaching a president operating under the tremendous list of High Crimes that Bush routinely commits? Does this then mean that there is one rule of law for democrat presidents and their administrations and another- kinder, gentlier - rule of law for republican presidents and their administrations?

Is our goal to teach our youth that it's okay to assault the laws of this land and routinely spit on the constitution itself, not to mention outright lie and phony up intelligence data to start an unnecessary war - IF you are a republican president?

If you are a democrat president, on the other hand, then unending and fully funded investigations into all aspects of your business and personal life are the rule of law. Ahhhh, but let's NOT upset the apple cart if you are a republican president, because THEN it is natural and just that there is NEVER to be any aspect of accountability where your actions and policy decisions are concerned!

Are you intimating that this stunning, outrageous, and extraordinarily radical difference in the way that the political parties are treated once one of their representatives have the White House is somehow right, just, fair, and honest? Is this in fact, in some as of yet undefined way . . . GOOD for our nation?

It is . . . really ? Well, isn't that astonishing!

It's funny, but it's an article of faith on the part of both republican and democrat party faithful that their side gets held to a higher standard and gets treated unfairly by the legal system.

Extraordinary

bluescribbler — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:58:18 GMT

Here's a partial list of the extraordinary actions of the pResident and his puppet master, as adopted unanimously by my local Democratic city committee:

RESOLUTION ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND RICHARD CHENEY

WHEREAS, Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1001 and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has acted to subvert the Constitution of the United States and the checks and balances prescribed therein by appending signing statements to Acts of Congress legally enacted, proclaiming himself to be the sole arbiter of how and when these laws are to be executed; and

WHEREAS, Richard Cheney continued to receive remuneration from Halliburton while serving as Vice President, while Halliburton was awarded multi billion dollar contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq and for providing services to American forces serving in Iraq, contracts awarded outside the usual competitive bidding process, in a clear conflict of interest; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the United States.

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further that the Waltham Democratic City Committee requests that the Massachusetts Legislature submit these charges to the U.S. House of Representatives under Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603 as grounds for impeachment.

</blockquote>

I should add that these articles were adopted before * refused to allow his aides to answer subpoenas from Congress. If you don't think that Contempt of Congress, and the refusal to allow the Department of Justice to prosecute the same are impeachable offenses, I ask you, what is impeachable?

that's a good point Dufflepud. Just

Bounder — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:47:16 GMT

what would it take for the excuse makers, the con-apologists, and the nervous Nelleys to declare that 'yes, Bush must stand trial?'

In truth I shudder to contemplate the question. Considering that the man deliberately did nothing at all while thousands of people suffered and died during the Katrina episode. Yes, let's NOT forget about the loss of an entire and major United States city and the subsequent diaspora of much of its population while Bush was apparently content to play his hillbilly banjo and tell Brownie that he was doing a heck of a job.

So, does Bush actually have to rape and then murder an infant on the steps of the White House itself before these people finally concede that this creature is impeachment worthy, and that doing so would actually be good for this nation? Yes, so it does appear to be the final requirement.

Re: No no no

dufflepud — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:27:30 GMT

Out of curiosity, if after everything he has done you don't think impeachment is appropriate what would it take before you would suggest impeachment? Is there anything? Let us all know where (if there is somewhere) you would draw the line.