ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:41 am

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
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:48 am

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?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:48 am

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.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:50 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:50 am

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.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:59 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:59 am

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.
 
HPLASOps
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:13 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:15 am

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.
"Just because I know how to get off a freeway doesn't mean I know how to get back on!" - Retard Joe
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:16 am

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.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:19 am

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.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:30 am

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
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:34 am

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
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:39 am

Impeaching Bush puts Cheney in charge and he is running the show anyways so what is the difference.  stirthepot 
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:41 am

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?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:43 am

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
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:45 am

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?
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:49 am

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
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:02 am

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

Was Begala complaining or remarking about that?
 
AC773
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:03 am

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.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:04 am

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:10 am

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
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:16 am

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/
 
ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:06 am

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
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
diamond
Posts: 3000
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:01 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:15 am

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.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:19 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
102IAHexpress
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:33 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:24 am

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.
What’s saving him is the horrible thought of successfully impeaching and removing President Bush and replacing him with someone who is even disliked more than he is. The only way I can see impeachment going forward is if President Bush, Vice President Cheney and AG Gonzales are all brought on articles of impeachment together. Of course that will not happen, but if AG Gonzales does not resign he will be impeached. AG Gonzales will not last another month.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 25):
Of course that will not happen, but if AG Gonzales does not resign he will be impeached. AG Gonzales will not last another month.

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 has really laid a glove on him. What you do is you have complaints, but there is yet to be any specific allegation. Instead what you have is a demand for more and more intrusive looks into the internal workings of the White House. Again, look at all the pages here, look at all the hearings. It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick.

Frankly, if you have something solid and you think you do, invite the people up, ask the questions. Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied. Instead, this looks like an attempt to provoke something that falls more into the area of political theater than respectful, good governance and trying to do oversight.

...

In any event, it's worth putting this in perspective in terms of the accomplishments of the present Congress. If you take a look at the 110th Congress right now, which had promised to have all of its appropriations bills done this month, here's what we have seen since the beginning of the Congress: More than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. That's pretty significant.

In fact, the 87,000 hours that we mentioned that have been used in document production -- that's equal to more than nine-and-a-half years -- and here's your graphic of the day, ladies and gentlemen -- if you took those 430,000 pages and stack them on top of each other, they would reach a height twice that of the executive mansion, itself.



I think it's pretty clear - The Congress Dems want to flood the white house with nusance investigations which will lead nowhere, and make the Republican leadership look bad for next year's elections. And I'm not saying that the Repubs did a lot better in 1997 and 98. But this BS has got to stop.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:11 am

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?

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 court of law and lie. The sad part is all of it could have been avoided if he had just been honest in court. The fact that he had a consensual relationship with an intern in no way equates to sexually harrassing an employee. The democratic leadership forever tainted impeachment by not standing up for the rule of law. Even more sadly VP Gore probably would have had a much better chance to win the Presidency and give the democrats at least 4 more years since the entire episode did not have anything to do with him.

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 31):
but if AG Gonzales does not resign he will be impeached.

I am waiting with baited breath to hear how th AG gets "impeached".
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
seb146
Posts: 14063
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:17 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
lying to the American people is not illegal.

Except when Clinton did it...

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
The Dems' job performance ratings are even lower than Bush's.

Ummm... try again. Congress job performance ratings are lower than Bush's

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
Can you point to a lie UNDER OATH he's told?

No, because no one can get him OR Cheney under oath.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied.

Everyone has been made available, but they either ignore their subpoena or keep parroting "I don't know, I don't recall" so they can not deny anything.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
I think it's pretty clear - The Congress Dems want to flood the white house with nusance investigations which will lead nowhere, and make the Republican leadership look bad for next year's elections. And I'm not saying that the Repubs did a lot better in 1997 and 98. But this BS has got to stop.

If there was nothing bad or illegal going on, there would not be the constant need for stonewalling from the executive and Cheney branches of government. If nothing bad or illegal is going on, everyone from Bush to the assistant secretary of the secretary of the Department of Weights and Measures would be able to walk into any hearing UNDER OATH and tell the committee EXACTLY what has gone on. But, since no one in the administration can do that, I feel the need for all these hearings and subpoenas. If there had been oversight the past six years, maybe something would have gotten done.

In all the Clinton years, the two worst things I ever hear them doing was Whitewater and Monica. Curiously, what Republican pundits fail to mention time and again, is oversight by independent council and subpoenas from Congress lead to impeachment proceedings. But, it was okay with Clinton. Popular as he was and as robust as the economy was while he was president, he needed to be impeached and possibly removed from office. Witch hunt comes to mind. Even though everyone answered subpoenas and testified, even the President himself. Unlike the current administration who fly Congress the great big bird.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:18 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
Even if you accept the notion that he's dirty, what has he personally done that's a crime.

Read what I have to say below.

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
Can you point to any bribe he's received or benefitted from?

How can anyone right now? The man hides everything he does behind a paranoid wall of secret and silence. Again, someone who hides things that often, is hiding it for a reason.

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

Yes, he was, and others have answered it nicely above.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 22):
...which only goes to show you have NO IDEA what impeachment actually is.

Notice he's not been back to comment, CB.  Big grin
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AC773
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:20 am

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 25):
but if AG Gonzales does not resign he will be impeached.

EDIT: Never mind, I got my governmental vocabulary mixed up.  Smile

And anecdotally, it seemed like you were implying that he'd be third in line to the Presidency. In actuality, if Bush and Cheney are both removed from office, Pelosi will become President.

[Edited 2007-07-27 04:44:38]
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:21 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 27):
I am waiting with baited breath to hear how th AG gets "impeached".

Like this:

Quoting http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/opinion/03bowman.html?ex=1335844800&en=0488aacc75444343&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg:

IF Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him. Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach “the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States.” The phrase “civil officers” includes the members of the cabinet (one of whom, Secretary of War William Belknap, was impeached in 1876).

See also:

http://impeachgonzales.org/
International Homo of Mystery
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:32 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
Except when Clinton did it...

Those two little words seem so easy to forget...

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
No, because no one can get him OR Cheney under oath.

It would have been rather hard to claim Executive Priveledge on a blow jobs.

Internal White House communications.. that's actually what it is for.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
But, since no one in the administration can do that, I feel the need for all these hearings and subpoenas.

Wait...

So, let me get this straight.

Because these people have zero legal obligation to give any answers you think they should be called in to give answers... that they have no legal obligation to give...

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
Curiously, what Republican pundits fail to mention time and again, is oversight by independent council and subpoenas from Congress lead to impeachment proceedings.

Curiously, what BLAH BLAH BALH pundits fail to mention time and again..

The Monica incident during the Clinton years wasn't started by Congress or the GOP. It was the eventual result of a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the President, one Paula Jones.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:40 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
The Monica incident during the Clinton years wasn't started by Congress or the GOP. It was the eventual result of a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the President, one Paula Jones.

If you're encompassing the impeachment proceedings into "The Monica incident", it only became an issue because there had already been a special prosecutor in place investigating Whitewater. Whitewater was being investigated at Clinton's request.

Oh yeah, I can see it now. Bush asking for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

You guys slay me.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:42 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
The Monica incident during the Clinton years wasn't started by Congress or the GOP. It was the eventual result of a lawsuit brought by a private citizen against the President, one Paula Jones.

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 impeached him for WhiteWater, or anything else they could have laid their hands on, they hated him that much. Clinton's mistake was giving them an issue to rally around, and even then, they couldn't remove him from office.

Yes, MD, it WAS carried by the GOP Congress, no matter what their apologists say. And now, when the shoe is on the other foot, we hear cries from the conservatives.

The bottom line is this: Clinton should not have been impeached; and there is no thing to even start impeachment hearings on Mr. Bush for. End of story.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
sw733
Posts: 5308
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:53 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 1):
How about that the lack of impeachment is based on the lack of a substantiated charge?

 checkmark 

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.

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 was that the Democrats pushed me out...they started annoying me so much around, say, 2003ish that I couldn't stand being connected with them anymore. I know proudly hate both sides  Smile Unlike many Americans, I vote on STANCES, not parties...weird, I know, most people don't understand it  Wink

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 8):

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

Look up December 19, 1998 up in the history books...obstruction of justice and something else, I forget exactly. He just was never "convicted", which is the process coming after impeachment which actually removes the government official from office.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:58 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 33):
You guys slay me.

Don't go reading too much into my reply now Westy.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 34):
And the GOP-controlled Congress turned it into a circus, with the goal of ousting the President from office.

No doubt about that.

I count that circus as one of the low points in our governments history.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 34):
The bottom line is this: Clinton should not have been impeached; and there is no thing to even start impeachment hearings on Mr. Bush for. End of story.

I agree.

I think he should have just been censured. I also think he could have made the whole damn thing go away by admitting it right off then saying it was between him and Hillary from that point on.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
seb146
Posts: 14063
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:59 am

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 Clinton White House and they were answered. People testified. Whether that testimony was true and accurate is beside the point for what I am talking about. There was testimony. Even with people that allegedly had something to hide, there was testimony. The Republican pundits are now saying the administration has nothing to hide. If that is true, why did Harriet Meiers not show up for testimony? Why is there such a big deal at stonewalling from the White House? I know, I know: it is their perogative. So, that makes it my perogative to stonewall police with a warrant at my door. The White House can do it, why can't I? At least Gonzales had the decency to show up if even to say "I don't know, I don't recall."

If his memory is that bad, he really needs treatment. I don't think anyone should be in a position of power with a memory like that. But, again, I will give him credit for showing up.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:05 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
Is this going to be a trend?

Fraid so.

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

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 higher standard while giving testimony to a court???

BTW. The Senate is not a court, they are just a bunch of idiots that got more votes then the idiots that ran against them.

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

I think Planespotting describes it, When you hear Impeachment think araignment not conviction.

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 15):
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

Exactly, can't improve on that discription.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 21):
"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."

Billy was debarred over that.....I think that was appropriate.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
The Congress Dems want to flood the white house with nusance investigations which will lead nowhere, and make the Republican leadership look bad for next year's elections

Ding DING DING!!!! We have a winner

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 32):
It would have been rather hard to claim Executive Priveledge on a blow jobs.

Couldn't her mouth was full.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:26 pm

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 Pelosi wield a massive gun while she serves as executioner. I certainly hope law enforcement professionals use their duty weapons to take back our country! It is their duty to enforce the law, not obey their leader. If need be, you arrest your superior officer. The law is supreme, not the president. If Exec Branch employees do crimes -- it's straight to the slammer. If not, some Federal law enforcement agents need to storm the facility and make arrests. There are procedures for disobeying orders in service of US law and the Constitution. It is perfectly legal to do that.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 38):


Agreed in the big picture it was minor, but shouldn't our civil servants be held to a higher standard?

No. The same standards will be fine. Adultery is not a crime. Lying about adultery has been the topic of very few perjury cases in the history of the world. It is the weakest possible perjury topic. It is the one perjury topic that is 100% forgivable, and should not be illegal in the first place. It is the same as a speeding ticket. Actually, even less serious.

It was the stupidest thing ever. One of our best presidents -- loved all over the world, just ask them -- was impeached. Therefore, impeachment can happen to great presidents. Clinton will be known for all time as an intelligent, honest and successful man who had a great presidency of unprecedented peace, goodwill and prosperity. His legacy is secure. Far more so than Bush.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 39):
One of our best presidents -- loved all over the world, just ask them -- was impeached

You remember Andrew Jackson?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 39):
His legacy is secure

Clintons is a stain on a dress.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 39):
Personally, I would like to see Nancy Pelosi wield a massive gun while she serves as executioner.

Won't happen, she is a anti-gun explative deleted.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
AC773
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:48 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 40):
You remember Andrew Jackson?

Jackson was never impeached; I think you mean Johnson.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 40):
Won't happen, she is a anti-gun explative deleted.

Good point. Better bring out the gallows!  Wink
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
 
seb146
Posts: 14063
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:55 pm

So, just playing devil's advocate here, what about signing statements? IF (just speaking hypothetical) a law goes into effect, why can the president exuse him/herself from that law? I thought no one is above the law. What makes signing statements the exception? I am asking only in general, not as a Bush-bashing question. Signing statements were done by Clinton, too, so don't get on me about that.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:34 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
I thought no one is above the law. What makes signing statements the exception?

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 from the very laws it passed that we the citizens had to abide by.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:39 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 31):
IF Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him. Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach “the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States.” The phrase “civil officers” includes the members of the cabinet (one of whom, Secretary of War William Belknap, was impeached in 1876).

Yes, you're right, I'd forgotten that it said that. My bad.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:45 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 37):
Subpoenas were handed out hand over fist to the Clinton White House and they were answered. People testified. Whether that testimony was true and accurate is beside the point for what I am talking about. There was testimony. Even with people that allegedly had something to hide, there was testimony.

Hmmm..you sure about that?

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
102IAHexpress
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:33 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:50 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 27):
I am waiting with baited breath to hear how th AG gets "impeached".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._of_the_United_States_Constitution

FYI: bated breath  Wink
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:46 pm

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 46):
FYI: bated breath

Sorry, the computer at work does not have java and so does not display the spell checker.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:28 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 28):
If there was nothing bad or illegal going on, there would not be the constant need for stonewalling from the executive and Cheney branches of government.

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 knocking on your door 300 times in the past 6 months. He asks questions, asks to look around, to see your files over and over. He never finds anything, but he keeps coming back.

What to you call that? I call it harassment. And that is exactly what Congress is doing to the White House. They are infatuated with Bush, and want to find something, anything, to stab him with.

Which is a complete abuse of the concept of investigations. You investigate situations when you think a crime may have been committed. You are not supposed to launch investigations with the intention of provoking a crime - such as happened in Libby.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12427
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Clinton's Impeachment Saving Bush Now?

Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:13 pm

Simple answer - yes. Impeachment proceedings are as much about politics as they are about criminal proceedings. I believe many Democrats, as much as they think President Bush and VP Cheney are qualified to face Impeachment proceedings, fear a political fallout from pushing for Impeachment. I also see that the Democrats believe that they lack a sufficient number of probable votes to get an Impeachment conviction so they see any proceedings to be futile and useless.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hillis, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests