That Crazy Dennis the Menace

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Regardless of all of that, UN resolutions nor international law are grounds for impeaching a US President.

Actually, some treaties to which the US is a party have the full force of federal law behind them.  The Geneva Conventions are in that category, and if it could be proved that, at Bush's behest we broke those laws, then it stands to reason that he'd be prosecutable.

Generally, wasn't there a lot of argument during Clinton's impeachment about what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors?"  I seem to remember that the Senate had very wide latitude to consider what that meant, and that those crimes and misdemeanors didn't necessarily have to directly correspond to state or federal laws.  In short, if enough people wanted a president gone, then they could do it through impeachment for whatever reason.

[Conan71]

Consider this:

There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges.  IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.

The GOP played a stupid game impeaching Clinton over perjury.  Now there will be special investigations and calls for impeachment of every President from here forward.  That was a huge waste of taxpayer money.  The tab of wasted money by the GOP on so many other things keeps piling up. [V]

[cannon_fodder]

Yes, there is wide latitude Weavus and I granted that some (even many) of the items on the list could have merit.  But including "attempting to destroy Medicaid" and "Katrina" on the list made it a total joke.

And all treaties adopted by the Federal government have the force of law.  They are actually usurp Federal law for that matter (it's why we can't shoot Canadian Geese on golf courses... stupid Migratory Bird Treaty).  But the ramifications of an executive order to breach a treaty are not clear cut (international relations are the domain of the executive).

And what particular treaties were violated?  The Geneva Convention covers uniformed soldiers, so that wouldn't really apply.  Maybe something in the rendition (which I gave credence to) and certainly the detention in Gitmo has treaty implications... but what they are and if the breach of them is a crime by the President I can not say.

However, Obstruction of Justice and Perjury are well established Federal crimes.  Not that the whole Clinton debacle was worth a damn either.  How many people wish he would have just said "Yeah, I kinda got a think for fat chicks.  Sorry." and the whole thing just went away?

I'm actually looking forward to Bush getting out of office.  I want to see if the blood lust continues if McCain gets elected and/or if Obama gets a free pass if he is elected.  Not pointing figures, I'm really curious to see.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Consider this:

There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges.  IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.

Actually, I think there might have been several charges brought after the 2006 congressional elections, but Pelosi and Reid both said explicitly that impeachment was off the table.  In mine and a lot of peoples' opinions, Bush has far surpassed the Clinton Threshold for impeachment hearings, we've just been saddled with a political leadership that couldn't stomach that fight (and truth be told, didn't have the numbers in congress to even attempt it).  

And an impeachment of Bush is almost always characterized as a fishing expedition -- ie, looking for a crime when there's no evidence that one might have occurred -- but that definitely mischaracterizes the situation. There's more than enough evidence to support further investigation.  And Kucinich's list, while being scattershot and bloated, contains several kernels of truth that at least warrant further digging. God knows we've found out enough this far WITHOUT Congress getting involved.  Imagine what we might find if they did?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Consider this:

There are far brighter people than Kucinich and the American blogosphere in power with the ability to bring charges who have not brought about impeachment charges.  IOW- there's nothing there or it would have happened soon as the Dems took Congress back.

Actually, I think there might have been several charges brought after the 2006 congressional elections, but Pelosi and Reid both said explicitly that impeachment was off the table.  In mine and a lot of peoples' opinions, Bush has far surpassed the Clinton Threshold for impeachment hearings, we've just been saddled with a political leadership that couldn't stomach that fight (and truth be told, didn't have the numbers in congress to even attempt it).  

And an impeachment of Bush is almost always characterized as a fishing expedition -- ie, looking for a crime when there's no evidence that one might have occurred -- but that definitely mischaracterizes the situation. There's more than enough evidence to support further investigation.  And Kucinich's list, while being scattershot and bloated, contains several kernels of truth that at least warrant further digging. God knows we've found out enough this far WITHOUT Congress getting involved.  Imagine what we might find if they did?

There are enough members of Congress to make impeachment happen.  The 104th Congress consisting of 230 Rep, 204 Dem, and 1 Ind managed to impeach Clinton.  As we know, the vote went 50/50 in the Senate.

The 109th Congress consists of 233 Dems and 202 Reps.

IOW- more than enough votes to conjure up impeachment.

Impeachment sounded great leading up to the '06 mid-terms, but Pelosi and Reid both knew there were no sustantive charges which explicity violated the Constitution, otherwise we'd be up to our ears in hearing transcripts and Bush would either be out on his donkey by now or close to it.

People can brush it off and say it was a fear of Cheney becoming President had impeachment happened, been affirmed in the Senate, and Bush was removed from office.  Or they can say there wasn't enough time.  Look, they had since 2003, when it was first determined that Bush "mis-spoke" in the SOTU address to investigate.

Pelosi, Reid, and the whole lot of them were willing co-conspirators in this war and there were donors and companies within the consituencies of many members of Congress who have benefitted by this war.  Don't even get me started on the direct and "indirect" business investments of members of Congress and their spouses who have profited from the war while at the same time run for cover from it.

At the least, I don't think there's any real grounds for impeachment.  At the most, there probably are some things which could be looked at closer.  But, considering this admin has about 7 months left in office, what's the point in another circle-jerk investigation on the backs of tax payers, when there are plenty of other serious issues which have been overshadowed for the last six months with primary fever?

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

He's gotta be hung like a donkey, wealthy, or both.  Certainly isn't his intellect:

Well, didn't Hank Kissinger once say that power was the ultimate aphrodisiac?