1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Impeach The Faceshooter!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Fenian_Bastard, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/impeachment_fever_americas_got.html

    Nice numbers on Cheney.
    Watch the Democrats all chicken out now.
    (Except for Dennis The K, of course.)
  2. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    And maybe Pat Leahy.
  3. IU90

    IU90 Member

    American public opinion in favor of impeachment is immensely higher now than it was at the very height of the Lewinsky/Perjury scandal, and we've got a dem majority in both houses. Yet, probably nothing will be done.

    But I guess the problem is the grounds for impeachment. Don't you have show crimes, intentional violation of the law, or something like that. With Clinton they had him dead to right committing perjury. Bush's shit is far more corrupt and damaging, but not necessarily illegal. He's legally authorized to commute any sentence he wants, for instance.

    Now, if Libby would start talking on Bush/Cheney's involvement in Plame-gate they might have something, but his silence was bought off last week.
  4. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    The Dems don't have the balls, which is sad.
  5. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    No, the Dems don't wanna make it a political circus, like Gingrich/Lott/Livingston/Hastert did.
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    How can Cheney violate the law when he is above the law?
  7. IU --
    I would quibble on the "dead to rights" part, but the longer answer is no.
    You embark on an impeachment inquiry to find the grounds to continue with the process. The House had no information at all on Nixon and Watergate -- the special prosecutor's office was independent of the impeachment inquiry -- until they began looking. The House Judiciary Committee is where it starts.
  8. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    For a minute there, I thought Peter North had been elected to public office.
  9. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Fen, the point is before you proceed down any such road, you want to make sure you have a reasonable chance of success. Any DA will tell you that.

    I have a feeling that's more of what he was referring to, not the actual process of impeachment.
  10. I'd believe that, if he hadn't mentioned the Clinton impeachment right at the top. Every history of it that I've read points out that the Republicans in the House knew they had no chance ever of getting 2/3rds of the Senate to convict. They also knew from the 1998 midterms that the country wasn't at all behind them. They went ahead anyway, because the purpose was to hamstring a Democratic president who'd finally handed them the means to do it.
  11. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Active Member

    But isn't Bush hamstrung as it is? He has little support, even from within his own party? He has the reverse Midas touch...everything he touches, gets F***ed up. Like it or not, troops will have to remain in Iraq because of his poor planning. His appointments have been dubious at best, his foreign policy sucks and he is a Lame Duck. Any impeachment proceeding that starts now won't yield any fruit until '08, when he has to leave office anyway.
  12. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Fen, you tend to see things in such absolutist terms. Just because he mentioned Clinton at the top doesn't nullify the essential point.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page