Impeach or not?

[coolotter88 2]

well, it happens like every month, some state like Vermont tries to impeach Darth Vader...er...Dick Cheney.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/cheney_impeachment_resolution.html

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

impeach!

[hamsterTK 93]

well, what would it accomplish at this point?

Then again...who knows what might come to the surface.

I can't really decide either way. I sure don't like him though

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I see the Dems are still fuming over the Clinton impeachment...Nancy Pelosi was tripping over herself to assure everyone that this wouldn't happen, when she was campaigning. 

*caution-entering sarcasm zone* I've got a great idea to improve our country! Let's start another giant expensive mess that serves no good purpose!

[panthersimcity4 162]

I have to agree to *SOME* extent with Manticorefan.

First of all, IMPEACH!

Second of all, it would be a waste of time since he's already leaving the White House anyway....right? Dear God, please??

[KingTitan 6]

Well, I think George Bush should be tried for War Crimes.

[ccecill 52]

Originally posted by: KingTitan Well, I think George Bush should be tried for War Crimes.quote>

 

lol, well said.

Haven't read the article on the first post about Cheney, and I doubt I will... trying not to swear today.

[M-SIL 2]

Second of all, it would be a waste of time since he's already leaving the White House anyway....right? Dear God, please??quote>

Absolutely, they should be focusing on real issues like alternative energies, better financial aid for college students and etc instead of this bull****.

[SIMplMn9 0]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 I have to agree to *SOME* extent with Manticorefan.

First of all, IMPEACH!

Second of all, it would be a waste of time since he's already leaving the White House anyway....right? Dear God, please??quote>

 

Well, there is good reason to do it now.. and I'll explain it, especially to our non-American friends who may not be familiar with the impeachment laws.

When a governmental figure (can ONLY be a governmental figure) is impeached, they are basically guilty of crime committed against this nation.  Now while at first it doesn't make sense to impeach someone when they are leaving, it is actually the best time to.

To be impeached is teh same as a military dishonorable discharge, whereas you are basically disgraced.  But it goes one step further.  If you are found guilty of a crime as a leader, you have broekn that golden rules of leading, which is to lead by example.  As such, you are denied all rights and privledges associated with having been a leader.

So for Bush, impeachment would be worst, he would lost all his Presidential retirement, he political status, and worst off, his Secret Service protection.  Quite frankly, he is kicked out of DC without so much as a so long.  Same with Cheney.

In our history, only two presidents have been tried for impeachment.  One was Richard Nixon, who at the last minute resigned to weasel his way out of being convicted (like I said, ONLY a governmental figure can be impeached), and the last one was Bill Clinton.  In his case, he got lucky, as they impeached him, but never fully convicted him.

[bighaben 0]

I don't think he's ever broken the law.

He may have crossed some moral boundaries, but I don't think he should be impeached since he's never actually done anything "wrong".

But there's nothing wrong with calling him a complete idiot.

[Bluebeard 0]

So you really think Mrs. Bill Clinton is going to run in and save the day well then I got a bridge for sale in brooklyn.

    Blame the President is solution for you folks and forgetting it's the Congress and Senate calling the shots.

    Time to reduce your meds folks and face the real world.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: SIMplMn9

In our history, only two presidents have been tried for impeachment.  One was Richard Nixon, who at the last minute resigned to weasel his way out of being convicted (like I said, ONLY a governmental figure can be impeached), and the last one was Bill Clinton.  In his case, he got lucky, as they impeached him, but never fully convicted him.quote>

President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was also impeached.  And he survived removal from office by a single vote.  Nixon was never actually impeached.  He resigned before it happened.  It was, however, inevitable.

For clarification:  Impeach does not mean removal from office.  Impeachment is the commencement of the formal trial against the government official.  Since Nixon resigned before this could happen, only Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were ever actually impeached.

ISF

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: SIMplMn9

In our history, only two presidents have been tried for impeachment.  One was Richard Nixon, who at the last minute resigned to weasel his way out of being convicted (like I said, ONLY a governmental figure can be impeached), and the last one was Bill Clinton.  In his case, he got lucky, as they impeached him, but never fully convicted him.quote>

Technically, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

[david1314 44]

That's still not quite right simplmn9. First off, the House can impeach whoever they please. There is no limit to this power except its constitutional bounds, "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment". So, if you can convince 218 representatives to impeach someone, they can do so to anyone (real or otherwise, the ONLY hurdle that must be crossed to impeach is the house itself).

Naturally the Senate tries the cases. But removal from office is not mandated unless they are convicted of Treason or bribery. The clause also includes the 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' but this doesn't mean anything because the senate can define the impeachable offense as such upon impeachment, can otherwise take punitive measures within their legitimate authority against the individual they see fit, or the house itself can define the offense as a high crime and/or misdemeanor in their articles of impeachment.

And we should certainly be impeaching. There is NO doubt that crimes have been committed, they have tarnished the nation, and they're actually war crimes...so questions of international legitimacy play into it. Even if it takes longer than the administration being in power, they should be impeach and removed from office after the fact. This will ensure the legacy of the president is one of disgrace, one well deserved. Additionally, it will affirm this nation's commitment to laws applying not only to the people but also to the ruling classes. Not to mention the very real criminal proceedings that will follow necessarily thereafter, perhaps there is a chance to bring war criminals to justice after all...

I wouldn't bet on it.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: david1314 That's still not quite right simplmn9. First off, the House can impeach whoever they please. There is no limit to this power except its constitutional bounds, "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment". So, if you can convince 218 representatives to impeach someone, they can do so to anyone (real or otherwise, the ONLY hurdle that must be crossed to impeach is the house itself).

Naturally the Senate tries the cases. But removal from office is not mandated unless they are convicted of Treason or bribery. The clause also includes the 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' but this doesn't mean anything because the senate can define the impeachable offense as such upon impeachment, can otherwise take punitive measures within their legitimate authority against the individual they see fit, or the house itself can define the offense as a high crime and/or misdemeanor in their articles of impeachment.

And we should certainly be impeaching. There is NO doubt that crimes have been committed, they have tarnished the nation, and they're actually war crimes...so questions of international legitimacy play into it. Even if it takes longer than the administration being in power, they should be impeach and removed from office after the fact. This will ensure the legacy of the president is one of disgrace, one well deserved. Additionally, it will affirm this nation's commitment to laws applying not only to the people but also to the ruling classes. Not to mention the very real criminal proceedings that will follow necessarily thereafter, perhaps there is a chance to bring war criminals to justice after all...

I wouldn't bet on it.quote>

.....probably because Dick's pals over at Haliburton would get involved.

[Inusion X 1]

If they haven't impeached bush by now, i don't think it will happen.

[GreekMan 246]

Some of you are talking crazy stuff!!!!

Bush: war crimes??????????? you must be joking! that is just crap

Cheney: why would you impeach him???? what had he done?

[crazyyaya 4]

Mr. Bush dose not deserve to reside in the United States of America, never mind lead it. Impeach him as a symbol, convict him of crimes agaisnt humanity as a punishment. He sure has a few debts to society he needs to pay.

P.S. America currently has a political system were there are two options for political power, and the majority of citizens do not support the decisions of a government. Technically this system is NOT a democracy.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: GreekMan Some of you are talking crazy stuff!!!!

Bush: war crimes??????????? you must be joking! that is just crap

Cheney: why would you impeach him???? what had he done?quote>

Stating that torture is legal is itself a war crime (Edit: in a professional capacity in legitimate position of authority).

If only because it subject your troops, and more importantly citizens to reciprocal treatment.

I mean, once served with subpoenas we can expect more evidence to surface, but only a cursory glance at investigative journalism shows extensive clear evidence.

[justintime 8]

Originally posted by: GreekMan Some of you are talking crazy stuff!!!!quote>

Yep, BTW to all non-Americans, WE HATE OUR LEADER

Bush: war crimes??????????? you must be joking! that is just crapquote>

Lying to start a War, illegal Phone taping,  and some other crap that's like Communism.

Cheney: why would you impeach him???? what had he done?quote>

Shooting someone in the face.

[GreekMan 246]

all of that stuff is balony!!!!

JT: that was a foul up! you want him to leave because of that

TO ALL: name 10 things that are wrong with the pres of the US!

also I don't agree with bush on some things he does, but the war is all you guys talk about!

[Jasoncw 12,030]

Cheney has done a ton of shady and borderline illegal stuff. And that's only what we know about. I have no doubts that he's done plenty of illegal things that would be impeachworthy if he were investigated.

[hamsterTK 93]

^^^

I'm with you there

personally the people I really want to get the heat are all the war contractors and the people in office they have relationships with.

[6underground 11]

TO ALL: name 10 things that are wrong with the pres of the US!quote>

1) Violated United Nations Charter - Confirmed by Kofi Annan

2) Invaded Iraq under the guise that it was harbouring terrorists (when, America had previously supported Saddam's rule and it was known that Saddam and Bin Laden did not like each other)

3) Utterly ruined America's image across the world to citizens of other countries(Foreign relations)

4) Supplied inaccurate and misleading data to the U.K that claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (still nothing has been found).

5) Barely articulate

6) Member of the "New American Century" (as well as much of his cabinet), who's sole purpose is to enforce American sovereignty across the world.

7) Largely ignored climate change and the need to act with the international community to tackle the problem.

His government was highly ineffective after the turmoil of Hurricane Katrina.

9) Consistently opposes gay civil unions (by proxy denying the rights of individuals and a minority).

10) Borrows billions of U.S Dollars that could be better spent elsewhere to fight an enemy that can't be killed with weapons (terrorist ideology).

[david1314 44]

11) Wasn't democratically elected

12) Has consistently violated the confidence of the people

13) Has consistently failed to uphold campaign promises

14) He gave us Cheney

15) Rummy

16) Alberto

17) Ashcroft

18) He "Speaks with god" in what is at best the grossest violation of the separation of church and state to ever defile the nation and at worst outright insanity

19) It's always good to decapitate a dynasty. Its in the fine Whig tradition!

20) It's time for someone new and congress can apply impeachment as arbitrarily as the nation wishes

[Voar Tok 4]

SIMplMn9: I hate to be blunt, but apparently, you've never read the US Constitution or anything about impeachment laws, because this is nothing close to how it actually works.

When a governmental figure (can ONLY be a governmental figure) is impeached, they are basically guilty of crime committed against this nation.  Now while at first it doesn't make sense to impeach someone when they are leaving, it is actually the best time to.quote>

All impeachment means is that they have been formally charged with a crime, but not on the civil level.  They aren't at all proven guilty yet.

To be impeached is teh same as a military dishonorable discharge, whereas you are basically disgraced.  But it goes one step further.  If you are found guilty of a crime as a leader, you have broekn that golden rules of leading, which is to lead by example.  As such, you are denied all rights and privledges associated with having been a leader.quote>

Yes, you're disgraced.  But you're not denied anything.  You lose all public credibility if you get removed, but Clinton proved that you can be impeached and not lose all public face.

So for Bush, impeachment would be worst, he would lost all his Presidential retirement, he political status, and worst off, his Secret Service protection.  Quite frankly, he is kicked out of DC without so much as a so long.  Same with Cheney.quote>

Impeachment wouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  Democrats don't have the votes to kick him out, even if they do find him guilty of anything they want to.  Clinton was found guilty of whatever they were trying him for, but Republicans didn't have the votes to get him kicked out, so he didn't leave.  Clinton didn't lose a thing, and neither would Bush.

In our history, only two presidents have been tried for impeachment.  One was Richard Nixon, who at the last minute resigned to weasel his way out of being convicted (like I said, ONLY a governmental figure can be impeached), and the last one was Bill Clinton.  In his case, he got lucky, as they impeached him, but never fully convicted him.quote>

Yes, two Presidents have been impeached, but Nixon was not one of them.  He resigned before he was impeached.  Andrew Johnson was fully convicted, but he missed being removed by one vote.  Bill Clinton was completely convicted, but not removed from office.

That said, impeaching Bush would be pointless, because they'll never accomplish anything other than waste money for a public charade that will accomplish nothing.  It's best to not even do it, because then we'll give the rest of the world that doesn't know how it works a belief that he'll get removed, which won't happen.

[justintime 8]

How did he even win in '04?

Did the American people want to see if he could save us for the Hell that is the Iraq war, unforeseen hell that the political system has become?

Is it just me, or do we need a 2nd revolution?

BTW, I voted Kerry.

[Nardo69 51]

IMHO as a German citizem they should

- impeach both Bush and Cheney

- acknowledge the International Court in Den Haag

- send both of them plus the other dogs of war charged for raiding another country based uopn lies and false/falsified imformation

This would not end Terror but might be a start of making the world a bit safer ....

[6underground 11]

- acknowledge the International Court in Den Haag quote>

I couldn't agree more my German friend.

(British, btw)

[coolotter88 2]

no, they're impeaching Cheney because if Bush gets kicked out, who goes in his place