Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by loam
What is at the heart of this debate, however, is whether the exercise of that power under these circumstances is evidence of the intent to hide wrongdoing.


I don't think it is. If it was, he would have pardoned him before all the evidence came out in trial. No new evidence will come out on appeal.


All you are arguing is the President didn't make his situation worse.

Like I said, when I have a bit more time today, I'll walk everyone through the evidence already available in this situation.


[edit on 9-7-2007 by loam]




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I hate to point this out; but not liking the president isn't grounds for impeachment.

I don't like the man or his policies true enough but think folks what the alternative is.

Cheney as president oh please not that. I really can't stand that man.

Alternative number 2 with Cheney gone who do we get? Our lovely Speaker saints preserve us from that.

Think people we only have 18 months left; lets work together and get through it and elect another. Hopefully we will have a candidate who actually has some good ideas and isn't in the pockets of anybody.

Once again I've got to agree with Semper and RR there are no grounds for impeachment. I've got to star both their posts when they're right they're right.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by gallopinghordes]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
I hate to point this out; but not liking the president isn't grounds for impeachment.


Have you read anything I've written in this thread?


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
I don't like the man or his policies true enough but think folks what the alternative is.

Cheney as president oh please not that. I really can't stand that man.

Alternative number 2 with Cheney gone who do we get? Our lovely Speaker saints preserve us from that.


So it is politics above the law?


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Think people we only have 18 months left; lets work together and get through it and elect another. Hopefully we will have a candidate who actually has some good ideas and isn't in the pockets of anybody.


Failure to hold public officials to account ensures the very outcome you seem to be avoiding. Our Constitution is dependent upon our agreement that we are a nation of laws, applicable to every citizen, regardless of position.


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Once again I've got to agree with Semper and RR there are no grounds for impeachment. I've got to star both their posts when they're right they're right.


Let's play a little game...a hypothetical...

Let's assume Bush and Cheney are guilty of violating federal law. (Pick a law...any law...it doesn't matter.)

Next, if the conviction of a White House Chief of Staff for lying and obstructing justice concerning the very investigation into the breach of the law in question isn't enough to merit further investigation into the potential wrongdoing of the principals, then what would be required?


As I have already posted, impeachment is the Constitutional vehicle by which we investigate such matters. Impeachment is NOT removal. It is the investigation and indictment by the House of Representatives of a public official to account for his potential wrongdoing. It is then, later, for the Senate to hear and judge the merits, rendering a decision.

Under your standard (which isn't really a standard at all), no impeachment would ever be possible-- short of an admission of guilt, which we all know never happens when you can't even get to the investigation stage.


It's clear to me that the biggest problem in this whole affair is that people think they know the facts, when it is plain they do not.

God help this country.

:shk:



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Yes loam I read the thread; you attack me so it seems that because I don't agree with you I'm what? Standard-less don't think so darlin. There are no grounds for impeachment; grounds for not trusting him absolutely but that isn't an impeachable offense.

loam, have a great day and please refrain from any more personal attacks on me. It would be one thing if I had attacked you but I haven't and don't intend to.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
please refrain from any more personal attacks on me. It would be one thing if I had attacked you but I haven't and don't intend to.


Huh? Questioning your position is hardly a personal attack...nor did I intend to offend you.


Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Standard-less don't think so darlin.


I think you misread the 'standard' portion of my post.

ON TOPIC:

I think there is ample evidence to move forward with impeachment proceedings... (It's not terribly helpful that you didn't address my arguments, but if you don't want to, then fine.)

Sorry you took my post so personally.

Honestly, I meant no offense.


[edit on 9-7-2007 by loam]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
loam, I think you and I can agree that some of the president's actions may not be completely ethical; however, I still see no grounds for impeachment. Legally he's still within his bounds. At this point I agree with very little he does; for instance the pardon of Libby; legal yes it was a legal action ethically not so much.

I'm hoping for a candidate from somewhere that does have ethics and morals. I'm more then ready for a newcomer. I'm sick and tired of the same groups running this country.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
loam, I think you and I can agree that some of the president's actions may not be completely ethical; however, I still see no grounds for impeachment. Legally he's still within his bounds. At this point I agree with very little he does; for instance the pardon of Libby; legal yes it was a legal action ethically not so much.

I'm hoping for a candidate from somewhere that does have ethics and morals. I'm more then ready for a newcomer. I'm sick and tired of the same groups running this country.


Fair enough, but let me be a bit more clear about something...

I'm not questioning the President's general 'authority' to commute Libby's sentence... What I am saying is that because he did so, it serves as possible evidence that he has 'purchased' Libby's cooperation.

Remember, Libby EXPLICITLY implicated Cheney.

A President can not exercise his authority to hide his own criminal acts or those of his administration. That is well founded in the law.

Is that clearer?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
As I have already posted, impeachment is the Constitutional vehicle by which we investigate such matters. Impeachment is NOT removal. It is the investigation and indictment by the House of Representatives of a public official to account for his potential wrongdoing. It is then, later, for the Senate to hear and judge the merits, rendering a decision.


Bring 'em on

Not too long ago I thought impeachment for B and C would not be worth the time and effort. As one who was witness to Nixon's impeachment proceedings and after witnessing current events, I now believe the V and VP need to be investigated to get to the truth, to see the light, on many matters. Perhaps Cheney could be impeached first, if there is a concern for time, etc., which would be in line with poll numbers.

I defer to John Dean's opinion. He should know. He is an authority. He believes there are offenses to investigate.

Oh, BTW, loam's first post on pg 2 was excellent.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
I defer to John Dean's opinion. He should know. He is an authority. He believes there are offenses to investigate.





After the revelation that George W. Bush authorized NSA wiretaps without warrants, Dean asserted that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense".

John Dean




Scratch what I said earlier about the unlikely case of admissions of guilt.




Originally posted by desert
Oh, BTW, loam's first post on pg 2 was excellent.




Thank you.

It's often unclear whether people ever actually read long posts...




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
...however, I still see no grounds for impeachment. Legally he's still within his bounds...

Legally, yes. Bush is within his bounds. But then you must also question which laws, specifically, set those boundaries. The answer is The US Constitution...Disobedience to Constitutional Oath cannot be "trumped" by any subsequent law, regardless of Executive, Congressional and/or Judicial support. This is what many people do not take into account: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and, as such, any subequent law enacted which is not "in pursuance of" the Constitution cannot be considered as enforcable law. To do anything other than enforce obedience to the Constitution on Government Officials is to remove Constitutional "checks & balances" & the Separation of Powers from the whole system of Government.

In short, I'm addressing the difference between "legal" & "Constitutional." With all of the Government's "legal" usurptions & disregards to The Constitution (& the Bill of Rights) itself, these do constitute grounds for Impeachment.

BTW, Infoholic's post on the previous page was put together quite good, IMO.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
There are no grounds for impeachment; grounds for not trusting him absolutely but that isn't an impeachable offense.


Actually, it is.

If you re-read Loam's post:


Source

As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.


"Dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust."

I feel that Bush & Cheney have both, convincingly, breached public trust.

Also, if we look to Madison's statement that; "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

There's not only grounds to believe that he will shelter someone, Bush has sheltered someone. Libby's commutation clearly shelters him from punishment of a crime that he was found guilty of by a jury of his peers, and Libby is certainly "connected in a suspicious manner" since, in his testimony, he explicitly implicated Cheney.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
A lot of you feel that Mr. Bush has violated public trust, an impeachable offence according to a number of sources, and quite frankly, I agree, he has. However, feelings are inadmissable, you need ironclad, incontravertable proof, the which of I haven't seen. Nor have the powers that be, otherwise the House would be working on it, they aren't.

Personally, I'd just as soon he was gone, but he won't be, until January of '09.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by desert
I defer to John Dean's opinion. He should know. He is an authority. He believes there are offenses to investigate.





After the revelation that George W. Bush authorized NSA wiretaps without warrants, Dean asserted that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense".

John Dean




Scratch what I said earlier about the unlikely case of admissions of guilt.





Well, color me stupid... He did it twice.




Bush admits administration leaked CIA name

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

More...



:shk:




[edit on 12-7-2007 by loam]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Is this supposed to be a shocker or something?


This guy has been nothing short of criminal since he came into office. Both elections were shams, and he bends the system to fit his needs without repercussions. This should be immediate grounds for impeachment, but since he installed the new Head of the Supreme Court, this more or less gives him an alla ccess pass to whatever he cares to do.

I would love yo see the articles introduced, but for some reason I dont think it is going to happen. My guess is that he will try anything to stay in office and continue his dictatorship.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
Perhaps Cheney could be impeached first, if there is a concern for time, etc., which would be in line with poll numbers.


A Bill to Impeach Cheney

I has 11 co-sponsors:


  1. Rep Clarke [NY-11]
  2. Rep Clay [MO-1]
  3. Rep Ellison [MN-5]
  4. Rep Johnson [GA-4]
  5. Rep Lee [CA-9]
  6. Rep McDermott [WA-7]
  7. Rep Moran [VA-8]
  8. Rep Schakowsky [IL-9]
  9. Rep Waters [CA-35]
  10. Rep Woolsey [CA-6]
  11. Rep Wynn


I wrote to my representative asking him to support it.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Here's another excuse by Bush to continue impeding the investigation:


More at Source: Bush dismisses CIA leak as old news

WASHINGTON - President Bush always said he would wait to talk about the CIA leak case until after the investigation into his administration's role. On Thursday, he skipped over that step and pronounced the matter old news hardly worth discussing.
"It's run its course," he said. "Now we're going to move on."
------------------
He didn't even acknowledge the undisputed fact that someone working for him was the source, saying only that "perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person."

The investigation was launched to determine who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, a former CIA operations officer who had served overseas and is married to a key administration critic on the war, Joseph Wilson.

Shortly before Plame's cover was blown in 2003, Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraqi weapons and thus help justify the war.
------------------
After a two-year probe, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of obstruction of justice and of lying to investigators and the grand jury about the leak. He was convicted in March on all but one count.

...And then goes on further by addressing his (lack of) progress in Iraq...Purposefully derailing the questions about the investigation on the CIA leak. And in the article I linked above, he even lies about Al-Qaeda's current strength!

More abstruction of a lawful investigation into crimes that have at least some impact on National Security...Makes me think that, just perhaps, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security should have been named as The Department of Political Security.

His excuse this time is saying that "it's in the past, let's move on." Tell me, Mr. President: How will dropping any further investigation benefit the Nation? How does allowing the White House to commit crimes & then sweeping it under the rug affect the Nation in any positive manner?

Please refer to the third quote in my Signature below for clarification on Bush's legally binding, sworn Oath to "faithfully execute the laws" in the USA. If that's not enough, just refer to the US Constitution, Article 2, the bottom of Section 1 & the bottom of Article 6 to understand that no one in Government is above the law, not even the highest Offices in the Land.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join