It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Secret Congress really Impeachment Talks??

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by sickleye

So based on that above link you submitted, secret congress sessions have historically been used to talk about issues of national security and impeachment proceedings.....interesting....

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by sickleye

You are probably right. It takes a lot of strings to be pulled in order to organize congress secretly. National security, international and military matters are usually the topic of discussion under such circumstances.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 01:52 PM

A cigar is just a cigar... And a secret Congressional hearing on national security is just a secret hearing on national security...

How many countless "pipe dream" claims have been made by left wing bloggers and pundits predicting the imminent "frog marching" of Karl Rove or the "arrest" of Bush, Cheney and/or Rumsfeld? Just because you wish something like this would happen, doesn't mean it has a snowball's chance in Hell of actually occurring.

My two bananas.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by Mirthful Me

I don't think anyone is saying that in fact that is what occurred during the meeting, just that it's a possibility. Especially with the fore-sight knowledge that they intend to defy the administration and put out in the open that the administration is operating illegally.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:05 PM
Oh God, please let it be so. But not just to make him a scapegoat, because we all know it's more than just W making this stuff happen, let's get them all. Let's do impeachment, then real investigations, then trials. Please!

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by Choronzon

Nice thought, and even plauseable. I don't believe it, but I've been wrong before.

One thing is true, that such a move could be an attempt to restore some semblance of credibility to the US government in the eyes of the world, and the American people themselves. Getting the Bush Admin tossed like that wouldn't be meant to stop them from doing what they have been doing, at this late date, but to make it appear that accountability will be placed for what has already been done.

Perhaps "they," as in the NWO architechts, realize they have overstepped themselves, and want to hang their boy out to dry.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:47 PM
My guess would be they voted themselves another pay raise so they can afford the gas to keep driving around in hummers. We have to be realistic here were talking about the government.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by trustnobody]

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Speculating here; but maybe they wanted to discuss the US economic markets – which has indirect connects to the Bush administration/family through Carlyle Capital – and this week’s coincidental shoring up of similar private assets with inevitable public funds

This article sort of took me there.


posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 04:09 PM
I seriously doubt it.

If impeachment was seriously on the table, the Democrats would not agree to a closed session since they would try to get maximum political impact out of the event.

In this case, the truth is far more frightening than fiction. The United States Congress is discussing what levels of domestic spying are acceptable in a closed session... Is there ANYTHING that should not be more open than this?

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Fuzzyone

In this case, the truth is far more frightening than fiction. The United States Congress is discussing what levels of domestic spying are acceptable in a closed session... Is there ANYTHING that should not be more open than this?

Actually, they are not discussing what is going to be "allowed" but instead are being shown what is already in place, and what will soon be in place. The technology is being revealed to them. They just want to know how to protect themselves from surveillance, so they don't get "Spitzered."

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by StarChild
Uh, let's see. Managing my business, meeting with clients, developing target market penetration strategies, customizing web development and IT integration concepts, and now am in college online at the UOP finishing up some homework, after I finish I will be getting ready to take my girlfriend out for dinner tonight. Thanks for asking.

More like reading a damn jargon dictionary. With a vocabulary like that you could really go places in business management

On topic: I think its an emergency meeting to decide how to halt a massive stock market collapse. Bear Stearns could prove to be the trigger for such an event. 160bn USD in stimulus rebates didnt do it... now theyre panicking.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:16 PM
I'm shocked they actually passed it!
let's see if they over ride "his majesty's" threat of a veto.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by NGC2736

I don't know if impeaching him would make us much better off really.. All you would have then is the puppetmaster himself Dick Cheney in charge.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:00 PM
Glad they took a stand ! Hope it sends a strong enough message. All the posturing about this "decreasing the safety of americans" is laughable. Either what was done was illegal under our laws (and constitution) or not, and if it was any declared amnesty is an insult to our justice system.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:11 PM
I read that they were doing a secret meeting to discuss how to strengthen the value of the US dollar due to the credit crisis we are in to help avoid further financial trouble.
Anyway, discussing the economy seems to make the most sense to me right now. It does seem like someone keeps manipulating the US stock market to stop it from going down too fast. Maybe the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) takes Fridays off. I don't see as much interference on Fridays.

If that's what they're really discussing, I hope they have a good plan. Maybe they'll announce something on Monday or Tuesday to help reassure the markets. I wouldn't mind if we had a nice 3 or 4 day rally in the markets.

I see 44soulslayer beat my comment. While I got distracted looking for a link for an article to show Ben how to fix this mess. The answer was in an article I read. I got sidetracked but can post the link here if anyone is interested.

I want the market to go up for a few days too. I just sold a short ETF fund thinking it can't possibly go that much higher but then it shot up $4 a share within 30 minutes after selling it today. I'm learning about investing which is much better than ignoring my retirement money and leaving it in a declining mutual fund which I did for years at one time.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by orionthehunter]

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:32 PM
I think that there is another war coming maybe Israel and Lebanon and Syria and they were meeting to discuss what the official positions will be.

I doubt they will impeach Bush i mean both the Dems and Republicans are controlled by the same special interests and have the same goals for the most part.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:57 PM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich refused to attend this secret meeting. Here are some of his words on the proposed agenda...

Democracy Now Interview

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Right. Well, the—one of the Republican leaders said that he had some secret information that he had to communicate with rest of Congress, and so he asked the Congress to go into secret session. I went to the floor of the House in that preliminary session and pointed out that this hasn’t happened but five times in 182 years, and I said that there should be a very high bar that has to be passed before we go into secret session. As soon as I said that, the member of Congress who asked for it started to backpedal a little bit. It will be interesting to see what kind of gravity came out of that meeting. My guess is that it had more to do with the desire of the administration to try to push for the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act than it had to do with any compelling new information about national security.

AMY GOODMAN: The President and the Republicans wanting to push through legislation that would grant immunity to the telecom companies for spying on Americans?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, that’s part of it, of course, but I’m thinking that yesterday there really was an attempt to try to basically use the procedure of a secret meeting to ratchet up the pressure to pass FISA and by—essentially, the Democrats called the bluff of the Republicans. And we’ll see if anything was produced in that meeting, because, actually, at any time Congress can vote to release the transcripts, make them public. And if that happens and it wasn’t a serious enough matter, there could be really extreme political repercussions, because we shouldn’t be going into secret session. I mean, there’s a reason why you don’t. You have a House of Representatives; it’s the people’s House. Transparency, it’s essential for a democracy. It’s very dangerous to have these things.

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:39 AM
seems you forget that hes out of office January 20, 2009 anyways, why bother when the process would take longer than that

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

I wonder why Kucinich voted against the Dems on this.

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by 2nd2no1

As I already stated above, accountability. Try to save face in the eyes of the American people and the world around us. Perhaps even set the stage for criminal proceedings.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in