Impeach The Faceshooter!

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.)

 

[wickedwritah]

And maybe Pat Leahy.

 

[IU90]

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 **** 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.

 

[Pancamo]

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

 

[wickedwritah]

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

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

 

[Ace]

How can Cheney violate the law when he is above the law?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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 **** 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.

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.

 

[bigpern23]

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

 

[alleyallen]

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 **** 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.

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.

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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 **** 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Brooklyn Bridge]

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.

 

[alleyallen]

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

 

[HejiraHenry]

Assuming he was aiming for the face when he hit the dress ... haven't we already impeached the faceshooter? Hmmm?

 

[zagoshe]

Imagine that, another impeachment thread started by the Donkey's top cheerleader. Next we'll get cut and paste photos of the Titanic and an array of posts giving us his favorite excuse, which is "THAT's DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT...."

 

[TrooperBari]

Imagine that, another impeachment thread started by the Donkey's top cheerleader.

Outing alert -- FB is:

 

[The Big Ragu]

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 **** 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.

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.

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.

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.

FB, The bigger problem with a weak attempt at an impeachment is actually getting the impeachment charge through the House. It only requires a majority, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague, but there is no way any attempt to impeach George Bush or **** Cheney is going to even make it to the Senate. The Democrats can only hurt themselves by trying to get the charge and ending up stifled in their attempt. It would actually make Bush look stronger than if they sit back and let him keep ****ing up. And obviously, also, even if it skipped right to the Senate without needing the House to bring the charge, it isn't going to get a 2/3 vote. It's an all-around useless idea.

 

[Football_Bat]

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 **** 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.

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.

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.

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.

FB, The bigger problem with a weak attempt at an impeachment is actually getting the impeachment charge through the House. It only requires a majority, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague, but there is no way any attempt to impeach George Bush or **** Cheney is going to even make it to the Senate. The Democrats can only hurt themselves by trying to get the charge and ending up stifled in their attempt. It would actually make Bush look stronger than if they sit back and let him keep ****ing up. And obviously, also, even if it skipped right to the Senate without needing the House to bring the charge, it isn't going to get a 2/3 vote. It's an all-around useless idea.

Word.

All Clinton's impeachment did is galvanize his supporters and gain him 5 House seats, which is unheard-of in a sixth-year congressional election. Do we need to galvanize the mouth-breathers in 2008? Horrible idea.

Best thing would be to let Dim Son serve his term and then have the FBI frog-march him off Air Force One when it lands in Waco on Jan. 20, 2009.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.

Explain to me how he's hamstrung.
His legislative agenda has been dead for two years, but his war goes on. He commutes sentences and doesn't even try to make sense. He's absolutely liberated by the fact that his approval ratings are at the Mendoza Line and it's too much trouble to impeach him. The Congress has to stand up for itself as the Congress or the balance that's supposed to exist will never come back.

 

[wickedwritah]

Fenian, do you really think returning to the 3-ring circus of 1998-99 will solve anything?

 

[suburbia]

FB, The bigger problem with a weak attempt at an impeachment is actually getting the impeachment charge through the House. It only requires a majority, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague, but there is no way any attempt to impeach George Bush or **** Cheney is going to even make it to the Senate. The Democrats can only hurt themselves by trying to get the charge and ending up stifled in their attempt. It would actually make Bush look stronger than if they sit back and let him keep ****ing up. And obviously, also, even if it skipped right to the Senate without needing the House to bring the charge, it isn't going to get a 2/3 vote. It's an all-around useless idea.

Even though support for Clinton's removal from office fell well short of the 2/3 required majority in the senate (or even simple majority), it still affected the 2000 presidential election. Fredo (ie, Karl Rove) ran on a platform of being a wholesome, likeable guy who was going to bring back decorum, morality and class to the White House. Despite Clinton's high popularity ratings, Al Gore didn't want to get too close to Clinton because of the scandal that caused the impeachment.

Hence, an election that should have been a runaway for the Dems (8-year VP of a very popular president vs. a political unknown on the national level) was far closer than it should have been ... and hence vulnerable to the shenanigans that took place.