Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Heard this prospect being raised, and think that in some aspects it's quite a viable question:



Could the arguable mockery* of the impeachment process made during the Clinton years, actually be what's causing much of the reluctance (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to impeach President Bush?

A similar argument was made about the recall of Gray Davis some years back.



.....what say you types?





*yes he broke the law, but let's face it-- so do jaywalkers, people who always turn on red, and teenagers who wear saggy pants in West Baton Rouge Parish

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Could the arguable mockery* of the impeachment process made during the Clinton years, actually be what's causing much of the reluctance (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to impeach President Bush?

How about that the lack of impeachment is based on the lack of a substantiated charge?


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

I don't see anything that Mr. Bush can credibly be impeached for. I DO think, however, that his VPOTUS, with a little digging , could easily be impeached. He's dirty. The President may have not done the right things, but that does not constitute him being impeached.

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

I think the fact that Bush personally has not been accused of breaking any law is what is stopping impeachment. Even if you accept the argument that "Bush lied" - lying to the American people is not illegal.

If his Administration pursued policies that are found to be unconstitutional, there still would be no personal criminal liability for the acts (unless Bush himself participated in the act in violation of a specific criminal statute)(Heck, most criminal codes provide for immunity from prosecution for actions by the executive in these sorts of matters). I've yet to hear a single person that's for impeachment list what specific crime (as opposed to "bad thing") Bush himself has committed that creates a Constitutional basis for impeachment. Remember, the office isn't impeached, the person is.

While it is clearly the House's job to determine whether a particular crime rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" (arguably they might try to impeach him for spitting on the sidewalk in violation of a local municipal code) there needs to be a crime.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Is this going to be a trend? Is every president from now on going to be faced with impeachment charges for whatever trumped up reason?

Clinton was impeached for a minor offence. Bush is being targeted for no offence whatsoever.

If anyone has noticed - The Dems' job performance ratings are even lower than Bush's. This is largely due, I believe to their launching all these investigations over nothing, while important business is not being done, like immigration, Social Security reform, tax reform, etc.

BTW, I think that the Dems are doing this because they are scared shitless that the Surge in Iraq might be working.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
I don't see anything that Mr. Bush can credibly be impeached for. I DO think, however, that his VPOTUS, with a little digging , could easily be impeached. He's dirty. The President may have not done the right things, but that does not constitute him being impeached.

Even if you accept the notion that he's dirty, what has he personally done that's a crime. Can you point to any bribe he's received or benefitted from? Can you point to a lie UNDER OATH he's told? My guess is that you can't find a single instance of him spitting on the side walk.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
Clinton was impeached for a minor offence

Depends on whom you ask, because if I read correctly, Clinton essentially committed perjury. And according to some in this forum, that offense should be enough to send the perpetrator to jail. And let's remember that Clinton was convicted of contempt of court.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
BTW, I think that the Dems are doing this because they are scared shitless that the Surge in Iraq might be working

I don't think so at all. Politics includes doing unto others what has been done to you, and viceversa. That is why I always use the word 'precedence'. I certainly see the GOP doing these fishing expeditions when they get the next chance.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
A similar argument was made about the recall of Gray Davis some years back.

Gray Davis was made well aware of the problems way before they happened. His inaction caused them to become severe.


User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
*yes he broke the law, but let's face it-- so do jaywalkers, people who always turn on red, and teenagers who wear saggy pants in West Baton Rouge Parish

Yes but when those laws are broken, thousands of people don't die. There are no minor laws when it comes to the POTUS; everything he or she does has influnce on many of folk, and all actions have difinitive consequences.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Clinton was never impeached. He served both of his two terms in office to the fullest.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
Clinton essentially committed perjury.

 checkmark  That's true.

What I don't understand is ever since JFK was president, nearly every single president has had some group calling for impeachments. This is becoming a trend among those who hate the 'current' president, whomever he may be, to remove him from office only because their favorite candidate was not voted in office. I would wager a million bucks that the next U.S. president we have WILL have a group seeking his impeachment within the first two years. Just watch! This is nothing new.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
This is nothing new.

But before these groups were relegated to a proper fringe. Now it is becoming more mainstream.

This is nothing that anyone should celebrate, because in all likelihood, the sides in this saga will continue to switch.


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
If anyone has noticed - The Dems' job performance ratings are even lower than Bush's. This is largely due, I believe to their launching all these investigations over nothing, while important business is not being done, like immigration, Social Security reform, tax reform, etc.

 checkmark  ...you hit the nail on the head here. I had seen those performance ratings a few weeks back, and also noticed that the mainstream media glossed right over it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
nearly every single president has had some group calling for impeachments. This is becoming a trend among those who hate the 'current' president, whomever he may be, to remove him from office only because their favorite candidate was not voted in office.

...that's the negative society we live in today. The same society that only puts bad news on the front page of the paper or at the top of the newscast.....why? higher ratings, more profits, etc, etc. One reason why the first section I read in the paper each day is the sports page (which isn't saying much these days, either  crazy  )

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20563 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
This is largely due, I believe to their launching all these investigations over nothing, while important business is not being done, like immigration, Social Security reform, tax reform, etc.

You've made this argument in the past--funnily enough, Paul Begala was on CNN earlier saying how just one department in the Clinton White House received over 1000 subpoenas from just one subcommittee while he was there. This whole line of "but the Repubs didn't do it" that you've been touting lately is a complete line of bull.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3363 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Impeaching Bush puts Cheney in charge and he is running the show anyways so what is the difference.  stirthepot 


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 11):
Paul Begala was on CNN earlier saying how just one department in the Clinton White House received over 1000 subpoenas from just one subcommittee while he was there

So it was not OK when Clinton was president but it is OK now?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20563 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 13):
So it was not OK when Clinton was president but it is OK now?

WTF are you talking about?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
Clinton was never impeached. He served both of his two terms in office to the fullest.

Yes he was.

He was impeached by the House of Representatives, which only requires a simple majority of representatives voting to impeach. In his impeachment trial, which is conducted by the Senate but prosecuted by the House (13 republican reps acting as prosecutors) with 100 Senators acting as a jury - he was found not guilty on each count. A verdict of guilty requires a 67 senator majority, as opposed to the simple majority required to simply impeach. If having been found guilty of only one count, POTUS is removed from office.

So, Clinton was impeached by the House, found not guilty by the Senate, and served out the remainder of his term.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39861 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Could the arguable mockery* of the impeachment process made during the Clinton years, actually be what's causing much of the reluctance (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to impeach President Bush?

Well of course.
The GOP & Co. has an entire newtork (Faux and AM radio) that will scream bloody murder and make this look like revenge of some sort.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
WTF are you talking about?

Was Begala complaining or remarking about that?


User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 10):
...that's the negative society we live in today. The same society that only puts bad news on the front page of the paper or at the top of the newscast...

So you want upbeat propaganda then?  eyebrow 

News is news. Yes, even the public news agencies want a bigger audience and better ratings, that's why they choose important stories over sappy drivel. I guess I don't see this "negative society" you're talking about.



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
Clinton was never impeached.

Actually yes he was.

Like Andrew Johnson he was "impeached" when the charges were filed. Like Andrew Johnson he was acquitted. Nevertheless, both Presidents stand as having been impeached, that is a historical fact. The conviction is not necessary for impeachment to have occurred. Richard Nixon probably would have been impeached had he not resigned immediately before the action was taken.

If Bush is ever sworn (as Clinton was) and then lies under oath (as Clinton did) I would reluctantly favor impeachment. (as I did in Clinton's case)

What Clinton did (Monica) would have gotten him terminated with loss of all accrued benefits had he been a Federal employee other than an elected official. President William Jefferson Clinton's administration, specifically his Secretary of Defense did remove an officer of the United States Air Force for adultery and disobeying orders. If Clinton was permitted to remain in office and shall be permitted to collect his pension and other benefits then perhaps the US Governement owes former captain Kelly Flinn reinstatement and back pay. By the way, her sexual misconduct was NOT with a subordinate WHILE ON DUTY as his was.

Oh, I forgot, no one died.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20563 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
Was Begala complaining or remarking about that?

It was just a little clip where they were talking about the amount of subpoenas that were coming from Congress to the White House. In more than just this thread Cfalk has complained about the current Congress and the amount of their subpoenas.

Edit: They just ran the clip again, it was from March 21. Begala stated the Clinton W.H. had received over 1000 subpoenas on one subject, encompassing 142 (or 172? I didn't quite catch it) officials.

[Edited 2007-07-27 01:14:23]


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 20):
It was just a little clip where they were talking about the amount of subpoenas that were coming from Congress to the White House. In more than just this thread Cfalk has complained about the current Congress and the amount of their subpoenas.

I wouldn't have found it right then, and I would not find it right now.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 19):

And he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. If the GOP had demanded jail time for him then, I would bet that most of the country would have rightfully raised howls of protest.

Found this info:

"District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 7):

Yes but when those laws are broken, thousands of people don't die.

...as is what (didn't) happen when Clinton lied.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):
Clinton was never impeached. He served both of his two terms in office to the fullest.

...which only goes to show you have NO IDEA what impeachment actually is.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Some people are criticizing Nancy Pelosi for failing to initiate the impeachment process against Bush. She has gone on record saying that, unless things change, she will not do so.

Is it because she doesn't want to turn impeachment into a 'trend' or an ever-eight-year-occurence? I don't think so. I believe she knows that an impeachment will not result in an iron-clad guilty verdict. So unless an impeachment is 100% guaranteed of succeeding, she's not going to do it. And I don't blame her at all. To have a failed impeachment process would only vindicate Bush and make the Democrats look weak.



Blank.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Could the arguable mockery* of the impeachment process made during the Clinton years, actually be what's causing much of the reluctance (on BOTH sides of the political spectrum) to impeach President Bush?

No, it's the lack of Bush having committed an act that would substantiate a charge of impeachment.


25 102IAHexpress : No. What’s saving him is the horrible thought of successfully impeaching and removing President Bush and replacing him with someone who is even dis
26 Cfalk : I'll let Tony Snow Answer that: MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the Attorney General and yet nobody
27 RJdxer : If any group made a mockery of that it was the democrats for in defending President Clinton they basically said it was ok for a lawyer to walk into a
28 Seb146 : Except when Clinton did it... Ummm... try again. Congress job performance ratings are lower than Bush's No, because no one can get him OR Cheney unde
29 Post contains images Falcon84 : Read what I have to say below. How can anyone right now? The man hides everything he does behind a paranoid wall of secret and silence. Again, someon
30 Post contains images AC773 : EDIT: Never mind, I got my governmental vocabulary mixed up. And anecdotally, it seemed like you were implying that he'd be third in line to the Pres
31 Post contains links AeroWesty : Like this: See also: http://impeachgonzales.org/
32 MDorBust : Those two little words seem so easy to forget... It would have been rather hard to claim Executive Priveledge on a blow jobs. Internal White House co
33 Post contains images AeroWesty : If you're encompassing the impeachment proceedings into "The Monica incident", it only became an issue because there had already been a special prose
34 Falcon84 : And the GOP-controlled Congress turned it into a circus, with the goal of ousting the President from office. If they could have, they would have impe
35 Post contains images SW733 : Very true...I actually used to be a Dem, registered and all. I'm not a card toting...moderate. The reason wasn't that the Republicans drew me in, it
36 MDorBust : Don't go reading too much into my reply now Westy. No doubt about that. I count that circus as one of the low points in our governments history. I ag
37 Seb146 : Wasn't Paula Jones herself found to be giving misinformation to Ken Starr? My original point was: Subpoenas were handed out hand over fist to the Clin
38 L-188 : Fraid so. Agreed in the big picture it was minor, but shouldn't our civil servants be held to a higher standard? Shouldn't Lawyers be held to a highe
39 Flighty : I think it is good to note that impeachment for capital crimes could potentially go up to the death penalty. Personally, I would like to see Nancy Pel
40 L-188 : You remember Andrew Jackson? Clintons is a stain on a dress. Won't happen, she is a anti-gun explative deleted.
41 Post contains images AC773 : Jackson was never impeached; I think you mean Johnson. Good point. Better bring out the gallows!
42 Seb146 : So, just playing devil's advocate here, what about signing statements? IF (just speaking hypothetical) a law goes into effect, why can the president e
43 RJdxer : Then you would have to ask a lot of the Congresses that same question since for many years, although not recently, Congress exempted it's own members
44 RJdxer : Yes, you're right, I'd forgotten that it said that. My bad.
45 Post contains links RJdxer : Hmmm..you sure about that? http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm
46 Post contains links and images 102IAHexpress : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._of_the_United_States_Constitution FYI: bated breath
47 RJdxer : Sorry, the computer at work does not have java and so does not display the spell checker.
48 Cfalk : I think you have it reversed. What if the local IRS agent started having a beef with you? You've filed on time and paid your taxes, but he has been k
49 LTBEWR : Simple answer - yes. Impeachment proceedings are as much about politics as they are about criminal proceedings. I believe many Democrats, as much as t
50 Post contains images Halls120 : Show us where Bush has committed an impeachable offense, please. Thinking that Bush is "qualified" to face impeachment might keep democrats happy, bu
51 Post contains images OU812 : Agreed and not to mention the War on Terror, The many partisan democrats in office are more concerned with scoring political partisan points for the
52 AeroWesty : The analogy should be one specialist department looking into the deductions or income from or for different activities reported on your return, not t
53 Pope : So you concede that no crime has been committed. Both have the legal right not to testify under oath about certain matters. Why is Congress's right t
54 Cfalk : Oh, crap. This is a fishing expedition, intended not to uncover possible crimes (because there haven't been any), but rather to try to force a mistak
55 Seb146 : No. I said no one has yet to get Bush or Cheney under oath. They have avoided questioning so no one knows if any crime has been committed. If they wo
56 AeroWesty : Perjury, like Halls stated succinctly, is a standalone crime. There's enough evidence to pursue perjury cases against Gonzales and others, like it or
57 Cfalk : As Tony Snow stated, the administration has responded with massive amounts of data and thousands of hours of interviews. So you ignore all that, and
58 Post contains links AeroWesty : Show me the entrapment here, these individuals testified by their own free will: http://impeachgonzales.org/
59 AndesSMF : Sounds like a perfect definition for a fishing expedition. I would like to see whether there has been 1 single case where the only crime that that th
60 AeroWesty : Andes, as much as I like you, debating you in these threads is pointless. Just IM Halls with your questions from now on, please.
61 Cfalk : Scooter Libby.
62 AndesSMF : Westy, I am not disagreeing with you at all in any of your points. I understand what you are saying. And Halls said the same thing. But IMHO, it is u
63 AeroWesty : Please, then ask the GOP to take the high road Clinton did with Whitewater, and have them appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. If Clinton's m
64 Seb146 : Ken Starr? Whitewater leading to Monica? Oh, wait... that was Clinton. That does not count against Bush..... C'mon.... what's good for the goose... L
65 Post contains links AndesSMF : Here is a CNN timeline about Whitewater, with selected notes: Jan. 12, 1994 -- Facing mounting pressure, Clinton requests a special prosecutor be app
66 AeroWesty : Yesterday you were saying that if there was no underlying crime, there should be no jail time for lying. Now you're saying there should be jail time
67 AndesSMF : Should was in parenthesis. According to what you said, at least Mrs. Clinton should have been jailed for her inconsistencies, even though the Clinton
68 Cfalk : Whitewater and Monica were both events that the person being questioned knew that if the truth came out, there would be trouble, either jail or (even
69 AeroWesty : WTF? When does an "inconsistency" become "perjury"? This is gonna be fun. G'head, lots of bandwidth here. Have at it.
70 Post contains images AeroWesty : The entire issue came down to the definition of what the word "is" is. More Cfalk red herrings. This is getting sad.
71 Cfalk : I never used the word. So why the investigations? The whole point is to find inconsistencies and exploit them. You are right - this is getting sad, w
72 AndesSMF : Per my trusty dictionary: inconsistent: self-contradictory, the relation between propositions that cannot both be true at the same time
73 AeroWesty : ::sigh:: INTENT, man, INTENT! You and I can tell the same story of what we think this thread said a year from now and there will probably be inconsis
74 Post contains links AndesSMF : From a similar on-going thread: LYING is a crime in itself. It's a felony. Karl Rove Gets Called In (by Graphic Jul 26 2007 in Non Aviation) So now w
75 AeroWesty : Dude, just drop it, okay? Just completely drop it. You've taken a timeline from a new website and come to a conclusion that Hillary Clinton should be
76 JetBlueGuy2006 : It is all of Congress, and part of the reason they are not getting anything done is because 1. They can not agree on a bill to send to the president,
77 Seb146 : But they know who did. They needed a "fall guy" and that just happend to be Scooter Libby Since they had their "fall guy" take the blame, there is no
78 Flighty : Bill Clinton did not lie at the crucial moment. He was sitting in his chair. Anyway, if Bush is getting head in the oval office, i really do not care.
79 AndesSMF : CNN.COM is new?? No, you assumed I came to that conclusion. My whole point during this whole thread was that jail should NOT be applicable to cases w
80 Post contains links Flyorski : Here is the case to impeach Bush. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0GQUtYkxfY&NR=1
81 AeroWesty : Typo. "News" website is what it should have read. Pretty hard to twist this: And you continue later: I honestly cannot follow your line of thinking,
82 Cfalk : If you believe anything that whackjob (who was on Saddam's payroll as well, as I recall) has to say, you have issues, to put it politely. Here are th
83 Seb146 : Clinton had his law licence in Arkansas suspended. But there is a difference between what Clinton did (even with Whitewater thrown in) vs. what BushC
84 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Clinton's lies to the American people aren't what got him into trouble, it was his lies to a grand jury while under oath. ...forget him: Lil' Kim
85 TwinOtter : Well, the specifics of a "high crime or misdemeanor" aren't defined (on purpose). I think it is fair to assume treasonous actions are impeachable. Pr
86 Post contains images FlyingTexan : Left out a couple details in there. Allow me to go ahead and clear those up. The two officers involved: NEVER reported the shooting to their superior
87 Halls120 : sorry, you lose right there. Assumptions aren't the basis for an impeachment charge.
88 TwinOtter : In that case, post your definition of what constitues a "high crime" versus a "low crime", without making any assumptions.
89 Flyorski : Actually check your facts, he was NOT on Saddams payroll. There was NO link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq had NO WMDs. The administration repeatedly dr
90 Post contains links and images Halls120 : I see, another one of those I'm supposed to do your research for you. Since you are apparently unable to do it on your own, I'll give you one lead, a
91 ConcordeBoy : Indeed, considering that any politician who proposed that as a sole (or even primary) motive for occupation, would've been laughed straight out of of
92 TwinOtter : Thanks for the link. It confirms that the President's actions are impeachable as understood by the founders.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Clinton Impeachment Makes History Books posted Tue Dec 27 2005 18:18:59 by MidnightMike
Fmr. Pres. Clinton Goes After Bush posted Mon Sep 19 2005 01:12:20 by Jalto27R
Sheehan Calls For Bush Impeachment posted Mon Jul 9 2007 21:42:47 by AA787823
Vermont Senate Calls For Bush, Cheney Impeachment posted Sat Apr 21 2007 00:42:41 by NDSchu777
Finally We Can All Now Forgive George W. Bush... posted Mon Nov 27 2006 03:45:45 by Derico
Now The NeoCons Toss Bush Overboard posted Sat Nov 4 2006 00:27:22 by ArtieFufkin
Olberman On Bush / Olberman On Clinton posted Wed Sep 27 2006 01:08:18 by Diamond
Bush Has Really Pissed Me Off Now. posted Mon Dec 19 2005 03:03:34 by LHMark
Why Do Bush Supporters Bring Up Clinton So Often? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 05:42:28 by SATX
Bush Poll/Then And Now posted Fri Aug 12 2005 00:35:25 by Blackbird1331