Pelosi challenger promises Bush impeachment

[Algorem]

Source: Wahington Times



It's not well known, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an additional anti-war primary challenger for her congressional seat in California's 8th District.


She's Shirley Golub, 61, who has worked on Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaigns this year and in 2004. The most prominent plank in her platform: impeachment of President Bush.


"It is outrageous and unacceptable that any member of Congress, let alone our majority speaker, should unilaterally declare that impeachment is 'off the table,' and so defy the Constitution herself," Golub said in a flier circulated to activists at the Take Back America conference...





Golub has planned protests outside of Pelosi's San Francisco office each Thursday. Whether or not the publicity and exposure these protests give her enough momentum to serve as a giant toppler will be shown after the June 3 primary.





Read more: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/03/pelosi_challenger_promises_bus_1.html

[polichick]

1. Wow - can't beat that for a democratic cause!

[OKthatsIT]

155. (rolls eyes)

yarite.

[chapel hill dem]

2. I think she will have maybe two weeks to impeach Bush before he leaves office. nt

[mac2]

3. After that RICO and taking away his pension, security costs, etc.

[theboss]

261. Is she going to be AG as well?

How is a congresswoman going to create a RICO case?

[mzmolly]

6. Yes, she just lost a tad o' credibility under the circumstances.

;)

[sce56]

12. I feel the Idea is to get Nancy's attention since she wont listen to constituents in her district

If she gets enough support then Nancy might feel threatened enough to actually allow the process to begin in the house! Of course there are those of us who feel she, Nancy, has not upheld her oath of office and has enabled the Bush Junta to continue their crime spree.

Over the weekend she raised almost $10,000 in her bid to place a full page ad in the SF Chronicle. She is Number 2 on the
See Nice to see she made the paper in DC!

[mzmolly]

42. I can respect that.

I wish her well.

[MADem]

65. Does she think the Speaker gig transfers, too? What a space case!

It helps to have half an idea of how the damn Hill runs!

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. It also helps to understand how impeachment works

You obviously don't.

[MADem]

79. I obviously DO, but thanks for your "contribution" such as it was.

Feeling perky, are you?

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. You really need to ready the whole thread

Those of us who do favor impeachment know exactly how it works and we know that yes, it is possible once he leaves office. If you had not been so quick to dismiss our efforts all this time and ignore what we were trying to teach you and other DUers about impeachment you would know that too. Educate yourself. Then post.

[MADem]

83. No, it isn't. Impeachment, by definition, is the first stage of "removal from office."

Like an indictment.

If the person is gone from office, there is no reason to impeach or attempt to convict.

The issue becomes moot.

Educate yourself, then post? :rofl: You might take your own advice.

Go on, look it up. Do a little reading.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? You're certainly not lacking in hubris, though, are you?

[petgoat]

131. Defense of the Constitution is a reason to impeach, even after Bush leaves office.

Otherwise his behaviors become acceptable precedent
for future Presidents.

[MADem]

135. No, it isn't. Impeachment is the indictment phase of removal from office.

Conviction in the Senate is actual removal.

If he's gone, the point of the effort is moot.

Remember Ken Lay? He wasn't convicted of anything...because he was GONE.

Dead...pooof!! No sentence thanks to his heart attack.

That "conviction" never happened. His wife kept all his dough, except what the lawyers got. Justice delayed WAS justice denied.

You won't see an impeachment if the "impeachee" is "pooof--gone" from office. Keep dreaming.

Look me up when it happens, why don't you? Bookmark this thread and tell me how "right" you were.

We'll never have that conversation.

[petgoat]

138. The point is the defense of the Constitution. Impeachment also provides

that the convicted shall be disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust, or
profit (see Article 1, Section 3).

Ken Lay became a moot point because his corruption was not a matter of
constitutional principle. Bush's constitutional violations do not become
moot when he leaves office.

[MADem]

145. No, the point is "indictment" of a person so that when tried and if convicted, they'd be removed

from office. The removal makes the point moot.

The Constitution has NOTHING to do with it. If the House decides they don't like the President's tie, they can impeach his ass. It would be an intemperate decision, but they could, LEGALLY, take it.

And that IS the way the law has been interpreted down through the years: http://www2.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/10/cq/high.crimes.html

"What, then, is an impeachable offense?" Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., asked rhetorically in 1970, when as House minority leader he sought the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Ford replied with a stark answer that has become famous: "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

That absolutist position was echoed in 1992 by Kenneth W. Starr, then the solicitor general and now the independent counsel pursuing Clinton. In answering a question about a judicial impeachment, he agreed with a justice who skeptically asked whether an official could be impeached for something as trivial as poisoning a neighbor's cat.

But in practice, Congress does not want to appear capricious or vindictive, and a purely partisan assault would fail because a two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to convict.

In their treatment of presidential impeachment, history books generally center on the great constitutional confrontations of the Andrew Johnson trial (whether he could ignore an act of Congress) and the Nixon case (whether he had abused power, obstructed justice and defied Congress).

Interest today, however, focuses on the lower end of the spectrum: whether sexual misbehavior and perjury in a civil suit, even if clear-cut, would constitute a high crime or high misdemeanor.

Past judicial impeachments offer some examples, but scholars agree that they constitute a separate history, because the Constitution holds judges, but not other officials, to a standard of "good behavior."

Here, then, is a review of instances, some little-known even to historians, when Congress or its committees made a formal decision on whether to impeach a president (or vice president)....

[petgoat]

162. No, the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" shows the point

It comes from the English law, and specifically "high crimes" as
opposed to low crimes, comes from the definition of treason--that is,
crimes injurious to the commonwealth.

That is, Gerald Ford's famous miscomprehension notwithstanding,
impeachment has to do with protecting the Constitution and the
system of government.

That is why defining the Constitutional principles make impeachment
necessary even if Bush is already out of office. Removing Bush from
office is not the point. Protecting the Constitution and the
system of government from his contempt and his unitary executive
theory is the point.

[MADem]

167. Judge Petgoat speaks from the bench!

No offense, but I'll buy the assertions of Gerald Ford before I take your word for it.

You haven't backed up a single statement you've made. You keep spouting opinion and calling it fact.

Your faux label doesn't do a thing to back up your opinions, OR turn them into facts. Repetition of the same points, over and over again, doesn't turn a "viewpoint" into a "truth," either.

[petgoat]

170. Read the 1974 report "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment"

by the staff members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Until I read that, I too thought Gerald Ford's pronouncement was
the way things were. I was wrong, and you're wrong, and Ford didn't
know what he was talking about.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a technical term of art going
back to 1384.

Read the report here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

Read a summary here: http://impeach.wikia.com/wiki/Summary_of_1974_Report_%22Constitutional_Grounds_for_Presidential_Impeachment%22

[MADem]

171. I'm afraid your citations prove every one of the points I made. Not yours.

If the SENATE doesn't touch it, the IMPEACHMENT is moot. How many times do I have to repeat this?

The process STARTS in the HOUSE, with IMPEACHMENT.

It ENDS in the Senate, with trial and acquittal/conviction.

Now, follow along slowly with this logic:

IF the SENATE does not take UP the Articles of Impeachment sent over by the HOUSE, because the subject of the Impeachment process is NO LONGER AN OFFICEHOLDER, due to resignation or completion of term, then:

THE ISSUE IS MOOT.

And central to the whole discussion, something you continually ignore, and as cited in your VERY OWN SOURCE (which I am familiar with, thanks anyway) , is the specific PURPOSE of the effort--REMOVAL:

Impeachment had been included in the proposals before the Constitutional Convention from its beginning.32 A specific provision, making the executive removable from office on impeachment and conviction for "mal-practice or neglect of duty," was unanimously adopted even before it was decided that the executive would be a single person."33.....Throughout its deliberations on ways to avoid executive subservience to the legislature, however, the Convention never reconsidered its early decision to make the executive removable through the process of impeachment.44





You seem to forget the PURPOSE of impeachment in your overreaching zeal to ...perhaps.... "punish."

It's not a punishment, though. And that is NOT the purpose of impeachment. It is simply a TOOL that the HOUSE employs to get an incompetent--or, as they sweetly termed it, "incompatible"-- executive GONE. The House doesn't even ACT beyond forwarding the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for ACTION (trial and the subsequent consequences thereof). That's the part with which you have a big old blind spot.

The Senate has said there will be NO ACTION if the purpose of the effort (removal from office) has already been realized. So you see, the House can, in Crazy Unreal World, act like fools and play a game of impeachment, and the Senate, as they have stated they will, will ignore them. The House isn't about to act like asses and waste an all-too-brief (and busy) legislative year fucking around with a process that will go nowhere. They'd be tossed out on their asses as a bunch of 'symbolism-happy do-nothings' if they did.

So, we're back to what is MOOT. The action is moot once the officeholder is no longer in office. The Senate will not entertain the articles forwarded by the House. They've SAID as much.

You also need to get off your narrow Constitutional high horse. As many have said, the frigging House can "impeach a ham sandwich" for Constitutional offenses, OR offenses of a "political character" (see quote below) if they'd like. For ANY reason. Or no reason at all. Again, from your own citation (which is, in essence, and by and large, a compilation of framers' opinions, and not "law"):

From the comments of the framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of the delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly. It was intended to provide a check on the President through impeachment, but not to make him dependent on the unbridled will of the Congress.

Impeachment, as Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, applies to offenses of "a political character"...

See--Gerald Ford, by your own citation, was right. To repeat what he said: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Why is that such a challenge for you to understand?

Last but not least, the conclusion to that effort talks about the "remedy"--and keep in mind, the remedy is removal of the officeholder if they are INCOMPATIBLE with the duties of their office. And if the individual no longer holds office, he is no longer incompatible with the nature, functions and duties of that office.

Two tendencies should be avoided in interpreting the American impeachments. The first is to dismiss them too readily because most have involved judges. The second is to make too much of them. They do not all fit neatly and logically into categories. That, however, is in keeping with the nature of the remedy. It is intended to reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office.

Past impeachments are not precedents to be read with an eye for an article of impeachment identical to allegations that may be currently under consideration. The American impeachment cases demonstrate a common theme useful in determining whether grounds for impeachment exist-- that the grounds are derived from understanding the nature, functions and duties of the office.

[petgoat]

176. You mis-state the purpose of impeachment.

You cite language late in the section on the "Purpose of the
Impeachment Remedy," which language talks about removing an
official from office, and you cite that as if that were
the only purpose of impeachment.

You ignore the preceding language under the broader heading
"The Intention of the Framers" which says impeachment was meant
to be "one of the central elements of executive responsibility....
a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of
government conferred upon the President and other civil officers,
and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and
executive departments."

Ignoring 2-1/2 pages discussing not removal from office
but the maintenance of executive responsibility and safeguards
against abuse and usurpations of power, you seize at a
mention on the fourth page of a mere consequence of impeachment,
removal from office, as if it were the purpose. Baloney!

The report makes clear that the purpose of impeachment is
the protection of the Constitution, the commonwealth, and the
system of government--exactly the things Bush has endangered
as no President before ever has.

Your characterization of a prospective impeachment as the
action of "a bunch of 'symbolism-happy do-nothings'" is
circular reasoning dependent upon your assumption that the
Senate will not convict, and shows about as much respect
for the Constitution as Bush's famous if possibly apocryphal
characterization of it as "just a piece of paper."

Your summation mischaracterizes the issue by restating it in
terms of removing "the officeholder if they are INCOMPATIBLE
with the duties of their office" when the language of the
report quite clearly deals with conduct incompatible with
the duties, not people.

The Constitution and the public trust must be protected from
George Bush's conduct, not from his person.

Your flippant, circular, poorly researched, and bullying
post does more to show the bankruptcy of your argument than
I ever could.

[MADem]

178. You cite OPINIONS and call them FACTS. What you've cited are viewpoints.

Not laws. Those "intentions" are a compendium of opinions. Nothing more than that. They aren't definitive or dispositive. They're simply the varied views of the Framers and others who interpret what they think the Framers were thinking. They speak to INTENT--reasons, foundational assertions, if you will--but not PURPOSE. And none of these "opinions" are codified within the Constitution, a document that you keep coming back to.

And speaking of purpose (as distinguished from intent), the purpose of impeachment IS removal. That's the goal, that's why they say they do it. To get rid of the bad apple--or, in deference to you, the apple whose CONDUCT is bad.

You don't LIKE that, but that's the way it is. It's not "baloney"--it's the GOAL of the exercise. It gets rid of the problematic officeholder (the officeholder whose CONDUCT is problematic--since you're fixated on conduct, and playing a "conduct/person" parsing game in an effort to distract from the other weaknesses in your argument--no sale, there) and in so doing, yes, it does uphold the public trust, and so on. That's the INTENT behind the purpose.

What, you'd feel better if the stated purpose was punishment (a day in the stocks, a month in jail, tarring and feathering, perhaps, instead of removal from office?) and the INTENT craven, political and partisan (though, like the Clinton exercise, it sometimes is)?

High minded aspirations notwithstanding, impeachments CAN and HAVE had craven and partisan origins. Like it or not.


If anyone's flippant and guilty of poor research, it isn't me. You're just pissed off because you REALLY want something that isn't going to happen. And because of that, you shoot the messenger.

I'd suggest that you let go of this well-worried impeachment bone, stop getting mad at me for telling you the truth, and perhaps start looking 'round for another avenue to bring Bush to the bar of justice. If that's what you really want.

Impeachment isn't punishment. You want punishment. You aren't going to get it via the avenue of impeachment. No matter how much you carp at me and engage in faulty arguments.

As I have said elsewhere, you bookmark this thread and get back to me when your impeachment happens. I suspect I'll be waiting a longass time for that.

[petgoat]

181. It's a report by the legal staff of the House Impeachment Inquiry,

called "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment"
and you call it an "opinion".

You provide no source for your opinion that the purpose of impeachment
is removal from office. The report seemed to indicate that the
intent of the Founders (which might have something to do with the
purpose?) was that impeachment should protect the Constitution and
the system of government from abuse of executive powers.

Clearly, in service of that end the fear of impeachment has a greater
effect as a deterrent than actual removal from office does as a remedy.
If the purpose is to put fear in future executives, since this is served
as well by retroactive impeachment as by within-term impeachment, there
is no reason to think it's not Constitutional.

Your claim that I want punishment and your inappropriate comment on my
motivations are just straw men.

[MADem]

184. Yes, it is a report, and it IS OPINION. It is not "LAW." You seem to think it is.

Which is a telling indictment of your level of understanding.


Impeachment is just a tool. It enables the federal government, by the actions of the Senate, to remove the dirt from under its fingernails. It's nothing more than that. It supports the lofty goals of the Constitution, but it isn't anything more than a device to SERVE those goals.

It is only a "deterrent" to those who believe remaining in office is "the most important thing." For those willing to take chances, who think they won't get caught, who are banking on keeping a majority of the Senate in their corner, and who recognize that resignation might be the cost of rolling on the wrong side of the law, it might not serve as an ultimate deterrent. Even if you "opine" otherwise.

Most presidents ARE hubris laden and believe their own publicity. Some get drunk on power. Others, like the once-future Presidential candidate Spitzer, think they're too clever to ever be caught. Some just count on keeping the majority on their team to keep themselves out of trouble.


And when a President KNOWS that he owns enough votes in the Senate to avoid impeachment, he is certainly emboldened. And reassured, too.

You may not realize that impeachment does NOT obviate further charges in a regular court of law--because, as we know, impeachment is NOT punishment. Just as it doesn't have to PRECEDE charges in a court of law, either.

You seemingly take a perverse delight in presenting yourself as deliberately obtuse. I have no idea why, frankly. You also like to claim, falsely, that I don't back up my statements, when I do. I have sourced my arguments six ways to Sunday, AND provided cites, where you, on the other hand, have provided nothing more than your half-formed opinions. And then, you get irritated when I don't buy them, when you've made no effort to prove anything you've said.

If a person has resigned, he has no FEAR of impeachment. Resignation obviates it. There's precedent for this assertion, and that precedent is, like it, or not, Belknap.

I invite, once again, your attention to BELKNAP. I actually posted the entire record of the impeachment for you, elsewhere in this thread, for your edification and elucidation. Pay attention to the portions I have cited where it states, plainly, unambiguously, that the Senators voting against conviction "conclusively" considered JURISDICTION when casting their votes.

If there is no officeholder, there is no jurisdiction.

But whatever.

[petgoat]

219. It is an report by lawyers for the House Committee on Impeachment

about the constitutional grounds for impeachment.

You may as well say that the ruling of the Supreme Court is
just an opinion.

The report makes clear that every impeachment depends on the
circumstances. Your attempt to make the Belknap case precedent
as to jurisdiction is illegitimate. Very likely the Senators
considered the political point to have been made, Belknap may
not have been the true target, his removal from office was
enough, and most importantly, no Constitutional prociples were
were involved. It was a simple corruption case.

With Bush the insults to the Constitution and the system of
checks and balances are precisely the issues that impeachment
was designed to remedy.

Your frantic arguments do not hold water.

[MADem]

229. Lawyers--not legislators, and not JUDGES.

How can you compare a group of lawyers preparing a report to LEGISLATORS (who make law) or JUDGES, who rule on law, is beyond me. It also doesn't pass the logic test.

You simply don't "get" that this report was an AID, a "user's manual," not law.

It's a blind spot you persist in having because you desire a specific result. That result would have been nice to see, but it isn't going to happen. You probably would be better off resigning yourself to that.

I'm not "frantic" btw--but you are with your insistence that I embrace your fallacious construct. And you are mistaken, as well. Sorry, but you are. My arguments are rock-solid, because they are founded on fact, not wishes.

Have a nice day.

[petgoat]

232. I didn't say it was the law. Quite clearly it was prepared by lawyers

as a guide to the constitutional context of impeachment.
It is a work of scholarship. Since there is little case
law or legislation on impeachment, citing the fact that
this is neither is somewhat disingenuous.

Why are you so frantic about impeachment? Who does it harm?
What have you got against defending the constitution?

[MADem]

239. I am not "frantic." I am "realistic." Using that word to try to suggest

an emotional level of investment by me in this discussion is a complete nonstarter suggesting a failed argument.

I'm arguing from facts, not dramatics.

I have nothing "against" the process, only that it's too late now, there's insufficient support for it in the House, and because of that, articles would never be presented to the Senate.

Now, if pigs flew and we lived in upside-down world, and impeachment did happen in the House, the Senate would table that shit and that would be the end of it. There's no support for a trial in the Senate.

Now, you can insult me and call me frantic or any other silly little internet taunts if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change reality. You don't need high minded reasons to impeach, you just need the will of the House and the support of the Senate. That's all it takes.

You bookmark this thread, and come back and taunt me when I am proven wrong. I urge you to do that. Please. Just stop with the repetitive nonsense. It doesn't change the realities. And the realities are this: Impeachment won't happen. A Senate trial and conviction won't happen. Bush will hand over the office next January to someone, get on "Former AF1" and jet off to Crawford.

Game, set, match.

[petgoat]

242. Bush admitted on nat'l TV to an impeachable offense. Trial could happen in one day.

There's plenty of time.

You worry about the votes. After the hearings uncover the facts,
and publicize them through the media, we'll have the votes. The
Republicans will be scrambling to be first to sign up!

[MADem]

247. You don't know if he covered his ass with a signing statement on that.

As I said before, but hey--you ignored that.

As you do.

You be SURE to get back to me now, when you are proved "right" on this issue!

I won't hold my breath because I do want to keep living, but...do get back to me. Bookmark this thread!

[petgoat]

248. Bush cannot grant himself impeachment immunity with signing statements. You're melting . nt

[MADem]

251. Yes, he CAN. NT

[petgoat]

254. So he can cover an impeachable signing statement with another signing statement? Igenious! nt

[MADem]

255. You're repeating yourself. Get back to me when you prove me wrong! nt

[petgoat]

256. Signing statements can not provide immunity from impeachment. You're making shit up. nt

[MADem]

257. Signing statements have the force of law, until the Supremes say otherwise.

Nice try.

You bookmark this thread, now.

[petgoat]

258. So even though an an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is, Bush can cover whatever

he does with a signing statement.

In other words, you can't impeach a dictator, because he
dictates that you can't.

Thanks for making your legal position clear.

Hope you'll visit me in the concentration camps to say
"I told you so."

[MADem]

259. You have a nice day, now!

:hi:

[petgoat]

260. You too! It's been a pleasure doing business with you! Have a nice weekend!

:hi: And please put in a good word with the torturers for my beloved. Pretty Please?
I love her.

[martymar64]

185. You trust the word of Gerry "Warren Commission" Ford?

He provided the cover for assassins! He was a mediocre mind at best. He made Bush Jr look smart.
Quit being a Pelosi apologist, she's has failed as Speaker and deserves to be booted out of Congress for her negligence and complicity with the BFEE.

[MADem]

203. And he was right on that score.

Too bad if you don't like it.

I've got some bad news for you--Pelosi won't be booted out. Bookmark this thread, and come back and tell me when I'm wrong.

I'll wait. For a long "fucking" time.

[MilesColtrane]

217. Once a new president is sworn in...

...Bush is no longer a civil officer of the United States, and therefore the House can not impeach him.

They can pass any number of resolutions condemning him and encouraging his prosecution though.

[petgoat]

221. That the House can impeach a civil officier does not mean they can't impeach after he's not.

Here's a law professor's take (he says there's a "surprising consensus")

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm

English practice allowed post-term impeachment. Other perceived excesses of the English impeachment system were limited explicitly by the Constitution. Impeachment can only be for high crimes and misdemeanors; punishment cannot include death, as it did in England; a supermajority is required for conviction. The English practice of post-term impeachment, however, was not similarly limited in the Constitution.

Article II specifies that sitting civil officers are to be removed upon conviction. It does not say, however, that the ability to impeach ends with an official's service. Given that executive officials have limited terms, there was debate at the Constitutional Convention over allowing an already-powerful Congress this weighty check on the executive. The Framers decided that Congress should have this power, and so specified the ability to remove sitting officials. Ex-officials? That went without saying, and nothing in Article II eliminates the possibility.

The punishment described in the Constitution for impeachment includes not just removal from office, but also "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States." That is, a successful impeachment does not say merely "Get out!" to a sitting President; it adds an emphatic "And stay out!" While removal becomes moot after a President leaves office, disqualification does not.



And here's a Yale J.D.'s take:


http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#nine

Does Resignation End Impeachment Proceedings?

Not necessarily.... <I>s there any logic to impeaching and trying an official who is no longer in office? One answer might be the value of establishing a precedent that certain misconduct is (or is not) impeachable. But there's a more direct, practical reason why Congress might choose to proceed even after a resignation. As we have seen, one potential punishment of impeachment is disqualification from future office. Suppose an embattled president resigned, with an eye towards running in the next election. To preclude this possibility, Congress might choose to go ahead and impeach, try, and convict the President, and disqualify him from holding future office.

Evidence suggests that the Framers of the Constitution concurred in this conclusion -- they did not regard resignation as automatically precluding impeachment or conviction.

[martymar64]

183. If you're so anti-impeachment . . .

Then pull that picture from your sig.
Besides she's running for Congress, not Speaker. Only you made that intelligent leap.
The clue phone is ringing. Answer it.

[MADem]

204. You might want to learn to read. And stop telling others what to do.

You can't, apparently, get the simplest things right. That's probably because you can't read for comprehension.

I'd be delighted to see impeachment. Almost as delighted as I would be to see a million dollar bank balance in my checking account.

Do I think it will happen? NO.

Would I be pleased if it did? Yes.

Of course, you're so "fucking" (I used the word, because I see downthread that you like it) clever, you'd be able to comprehend a nuanced argument. If anyone needs to answer the "clue phone" (how the "fuck" old are you, twelve?) it's you--if you can find the "fucking" thing, that is.

:rofl:

Not the sharpest knife, are you?

[martymar64]

207. You wanna insult me?

Come meet me in a ring, gloves on, three rounds. We'll settle it there.
I'll even let a friend of yours referee, if you have any friends.

If you're going to talk shit, you better be ready to back it up with your fists.

[MADem]

210. How old are you--twelve? NT

[martymar64]

212. I take that to mean you won't back up your weasel words

Thought so.

[MADem]

215. What that means is I think your behavior is childish. NT

[0007]

97. I think more saucy than perky.

[kenfrequed]

130. I doubt

I seriously doubt she thinks the 'Speaker gig' transfers. This is more about attempting to elucidate differences between herself and the Democratic congresswoman, without regard for whatever official seat she holds.

[Drifter]

70. Impeachment is not ...

confined to the term. He can be impeached after he leaves office.

Cheers
Drifter

[chapel hill dem]

103. I did not know that. I read Ramsey Clark's tretise re: GWB and

did not see where impeachment can occur after leaving office. Has it ever happened?
I ask only to learn more.
Thanks in advance.

[Drifter]

110. I can't remember the source ...

I'm thinking that it may have been a show on the history channel.

I do remember that the founding fathers debated whether a sitting President should be subject to impeachment. The impeachment process was taken from (can't remember where), where impeachment was only available after the person left office. The founding fathers decided to expand impeachment to include a sitting President, as a means to remove the President from office.

This is what I remember from it. (or maybe I just dreamed the whole show)

Cheers
Drifter

[petgoat]

118. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the constitutions of Virginina and Delaware

provided that the governor could only be impeached after he left office,
so the concept of post-term impeachment is not on its face absurd.

(See the 1974 report "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,"
p. 10, note 35) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm

Report summarized here: http://impeach.wikia.com/wiki/Summary_of_1974_Report_%22Constitutional_Grounds_for_Presidential_Impeachment%22


Has everyone signed the petition for Cheney impeachment hearings?
http://wexlerwantshearings.com/

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. So it's okay with you that he goes unpunished?

Impeachment is not just for current office holders. You did know that, or did you not realize that?

[lazer47]

90. Why in the name of common sense would you "impeach"

when he is already out of office??? It would be so much more logical to "INDICT"

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. Well,

I think I can agree with that. LOL

[delt664]

101. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And impeachment would be an excellent way to dig up dirt to use in a criminal trial.

[petgoat]

115. You would impeach to establish the precedent that Presidents and VPs who abuse their powers

of office to subvert our Constitution and threaten our form of
government and damage the commonwealth will be impeached.

If they are not impeached, every President in the future will
feel free to employ illegal wiretaps, to lie us into war, to
torture, to abuse signing statements and thus usurp the prerogatives
of the legislative and judicial branches, to out CIA agents and
entire CIA teams, refuse to comply with subpoenas, and to
run secret policy task forces with industry honchos.

This isn't about getting rid of a bad President. This is about
defining limits to Presidential powers.

[marshall]

100. Does she realize she won't be speaker even if she does unseat Pelosi?

She be the lowest level on the rung of the congressional ladder. In a congress that has no will to pursue impeachment. With a two week window of opportunity. And yet she isn't even saying she will just try to do it. She is promising to have it done?
That's a real uphill battle.

[martymar64]

186. On the bright side, Pelosi won't be there to stink up the place

with her complicity.

[petgoat]

112. Bush MUST be impeached even if it's on his last day in office.

Otherwise the powers that he's usurped will be cited as
precedents by all Presidents in the future.

Impeachment is about defending the Constitution, and if
we want to keep it, we need to defend it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Where can I send money? n/t

[Pastiche423]

5. Here:

http://www.usalone.com/donations_golub.php

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Thank you n/t

[H8fascistcons]

36. Torn on who to Support..

Do we support her or Cindy Sheehan who has been on Bush's butt for about two years now and is also running against Pelosi.


*Please never forget that the criminal Fascist republicans could not commit these crimes against us and our constitution without the criminal Fascist republican enablers Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Jay Rockefeller. Please never forget until all of these criminal Democrats are voted out of office, they do not get to pick and choose which crimes against the constitution to ignore, they work for us...

[orleans]

41. well, when it comes to voting for someone i suggest you not

promote voting for anyone other than a democrat--at least on this board.

[iaviate1]

44. This board seems to be just for the Democrats...

forget the progressive cause. Orleans is right.

[orleans]

48. i'm not trying to be a ... whatever (you know?) i'm just making

a suggestion from what i remember reading in the rule book.

[lark]

113. So is Sheehan not running as a Dem?

?????

lark

[orleans]

156. no she's not. but her picture--that skinner made clear that we are allowed to keep

--is from the camp casey events not from a candidacy run, and were on du before she said she wanted to run against pelosi

on edit: (just in case that is what you are referring to. btw--what ARE you referring to?)

[sce56]

45. If Nancy loses the Primary then you won't see Cindy run very hard I'll bet!

Support Shirley first then Cindy if Shirley loses in the June primary But the more support we give Shirley the more heat we put on Nancy to do her job!

[bluesmail]

7. K&R because I need something to boost my depression

[onehandle]

8. "Washington Times" "Fishwrap"

Figures.

[nebula]

9. This should be on the front page of every newspaper

After 8 years of licking his cowboy boots, a Democrat actually shows some spine!

So when Golub takes office, will she try to pass a law retroactively impeaching junior long after he has left office? Boy them Dems are a tough as nails, aren't they?

Better watch out Junior! He must be shaking in his boots right now. I sure would be!


:rofl:

[groovedaddy]

80. Evidently, CURRENT law allows for impeachment after leaving office - n.t

[lark]

114. We think impeachment is allowed

but who knows what signing statement shrub has signed that states the contrary? These days, you can't be sure of much.

[petgoat]

141. Fortunately Bush wasn't allowed to scribble on the Constitution. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. She's got my vote!

[alittlelark]

11. She has ads on 960am here in the Bay Area.

She has a table in front of Nancys office every Thursday. She wants us to join her!

[emilyg]

13. Yeah, sure.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. So,if she is sworn in next January, she will work for 20 days ?

Sounds like a typical Kucinich supporter.

[sce56]

22. If you knew the whole story you would not be so quick to brush her off!

Pelosi has not listened to her constituents and refuses to meet with them about this issue so they figured if she would not listen to them they needed a new Rep in congress! Watch her videos and you might understand something here rather than just dissing her. And she has raised $10,000 just over this weekend to get her message out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk5vOC4P0CE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpE8Fv-8eIM

[Double T]

15. It is time to rid ourselves of the business as usual do nothing...........

Representatives and Senators. It is time for Nancy to be retired.

[Kaleko]

16. Everyone who stands up serves as a good example at least.

Shaming those DLC democrats into doing better must be part of our strategy.

[davidinalameda]

17. Pelosi is such a DLCer

[Kaleko]

20. Exactly. That woman finally pushed me over the edge

with her prissy, bigoted cowardice, and so I became an activist. Thanks, Nancy! You and Harry Reid changed my life.

:kick:

[lark]

116. She's also a closet Obama supporter

Surprise, surprise

[libbygurl]

150. Out of the closet, methinks. Spineless Rep supporting spineless Sen BO.nt

[davidinalameda]

158. nice

so you're saying Obama is closet DLC, as opposed to Hillary whose husband was a former chairman?

[RoccoR5955]

18. K&R. Finally a Democrat with cajones!

:kick:
By the time she gets elected, it might be too late for impeachment, but as another poster stated, they could use the RICO act, and go after ALL of the assets of Bushco, Inc., and give those assets to WE THE PEOPLE!

[Laurenceofberk]

63. SCRAPPING THE CONSTITUTION IS CRIMINAL. DEMS MUST SAY SO.

Every time a Democrat, or any citizen, denounces the criminality of the Bush regime, that is a victory. The RICO act applies not just to individuals, but to organizations, in this case the Republican Party. Aside from all the well known crimes, lying to start a war, torture, signing statements nullifying Congress, illegal domestic spying, consider this. Every year it is estimated that 18,000 Americans, mostly poor, die because they lack health insurance. Not to mention those who die with inadequate coverage. How many times greater is that than the toll of 9/11? The Republican Party therefore, which has prevented national health insurance, is guilty of vast domestic terrorism. And that is just the beginning of their crimes. And if you think that health care policy is just politics and not a crime, then you haven't known anyone who died for lack of care, and you have forgotten that the CEO of a health insurance company can pull down over a billion dollars a year. The Republican Party, and the corporate establishment it represents, are thieves, liars and murderers. We should all rejoice when someone starts to see and speak that truth.

[guardian]

95. ummm...I think you mean "cojones"

"cajones" means drawers (as in furniture) or a little wooden box drum

[ejbr]

21. Nancy has obviously been in DC too long

if she finds it more acceptable, regardless of her reasons, to accept this crime spree which continues and worsens due to her "off the table" remark over the rule of law. And those who justify her defiance of the constitution can bite me.

[Norrin Radd]

23. kr

[George II]

24. How does a guy who takes office a few days before bush leaves office impeach him??

[BlueStater]

26. At the very least I want Pelosi to lose her job

Fuck her. She disgraces the position she currently holds.

[George II]

35. Individuals don't choose the Speaker of the House

Presumably the 230+ Democratic members of the House think she's doing a good job.

[sce56]

40. As I said earlier she does not listen to her constituents just her corporate masters SHE NEEDS TO GO

This is what we need to see!

[George II]

43. Who would be a suitable replacement?

[sce56]

53. look at my sig line

[EFerrari]

72. Unfortunately, none of them are her constituents.

[martymar64]

187. If prissy Pelosi loses her election for congress,

it won't matter what the other members of Congress think. Besides they're like cops, they protect their own against being called to account by WE THE PEOPLE.
Fuck them all, I say dissolve the Federal system and let all the states secede from the US.
Hail Cascadia!

[polmaven]

29. While I can't disagree with the premise

of your question, may I ask you to rethink the use of the word "guy" for a candidate whose name is Shirley?

[George II]

34. Sorry, "Person" would be more appropriate, but....

....where I come from, Brooklyn NY, "guy" does not imply gender.

[Laurenceofberk]

25. SCRAPPING THE CONSTITUTION IS CRIMINAL. DEMS MUST SAY SO.

Every time a Democrat, or any citizen, denounces the criminality of the Bush regime, that is a victory. As for the RICO act, that applies not just to individuals, but to organizations, in this case the Republican Party. Aside from all the well known crimes, lying to start a war, torture, signing statements, illegal domestic spying, consider this. Every year it is estimated that 18,000 Americans, mostly poor, die because they lack health insurance. Not to mention those who die with inadequate coverage. How many times greater is that than the toll of 9/11? The Republican Party therefore, which has prevented national health insurance, is guilty of vast domestic terrorism. And that is just the beginning of their toll. They, and the corporate establishment they represent, are thieves, liars and murderers. We should all rejoice when someone starts to see it and act on their knowledge.

[jeff30997]

27. Yeah!

Let's move Nancy off the table!

[Sam Ervin jret]

30. off the table and right out of the House she has so ill served

[jeff30997]

33. Yep.

And don't forget the tar and feathers.:evilgrin:

[leftrightwingnut]

28. Woohoo!

:woohoo:

[Baby Snooks]

31. Why not a Bush prosecution?

Just because he has left office doesn't mean he cannot be prosecuted - I wonder what would happen if one of the presidential candidates promised to pursue prosecution? Or promised to turn him and Cheney over to an international court for war crimes? Instead, they say nothing.

This woman of course has no concept of government or she wouldn't have made the promise to impeach him. He will be long gone. As will she. How can you take her seriously?

This administration, all of it, should be prosecuted but of course that will take getting rid of Nancy Pelosi who would find some way to block it as well.

We were told by Gerald Ford we needed to "move on" and "to heal" as a country and all these years later we have found that while Nixon left Washington, his cabal did not. Of course, was it his cabal or someone else's? So we will be told we need to "move on" and "to heal" once more except this time we will not be able to do so as easily.

Rome is burning. And Nancy Pelosi like the good Empress sits and listens to the Emperor as he fiddles away. Oblivious to the smoke.

Nancy Pelosi will be returned to office. Because of too many people in her district who will fall for the "party loyalty" demand of some. Afraid of being told they are not Democrats if they don't vote for her.

The Democrats seem destined to repeat the same mistake the Republicans made.

[martymar64]

188. Fuck "healing" and "moving on"

Those are just DLC platitudes to rationalize why they are not going to bring the criminals in the BFEE to justice. It's all bullshit.
What we need is a thorough housecleaning and sweep all of the BFEE collaborators out of congress, beth R's and D's.

[petgoat]

238. Everybody who voted for the USA Patriot Act needs to beg for his/her political life. nt

[Maryland Liberal]

32. This is more Important than meets the eye...

It shows that there is still a groundswell that supports impeachment. You have a choice in November = Change or the staus quo.

[lonestarnot]

38. Yes there is! Damn straight there is and we are not under the yellow pissy rug!

[NoodleBoy]

37. 17 days before she can't anymore FTL!!!

[tinrobot]

39. Impeach him with 17 days left in his term?

Seems kind of pointless to me.

[tomp]

46. i think the point is: pelosi is not doing it now...

...and is therefore unfit for office. if golub's candidacy gains any ground (perhaps with the backing of cindy sheehan) pelosi might be forced to reset the table.

[petgoat]

121. To defend the constitution he must be impeached even if it's the last day of his term. nt

[Thepricebreaker]

47. Waste... It would take longer then 17 days.... All mouth BS speak.

[nebula]

50. Just like Pelosi

just like Pelosi, this Golub woman will literally say anything
no matter how absurd and ridiculous, to get into office.

so yeah, let's vote for Shirley Golub.

We sure could use another opportunistic, worthless representative
in Washington right about now. :eyes:

[rpannier]

49. Can't get done in 17 days

The House hearing alone would take at least that long

The trial in the Senate is presided over the CJOSC (I'm pretty sure).

So it would have to be set in conjunction with the other duties of the Court.

Which at the earliest would probably be March.

DUH-bya would be out of office by then.

[Yukari Yakumo]

51. Loony crank with no clue how government runs.

The "Impeach Now!!!1!" crowd fails to realize just how government works and that the Dems do not walk lock-step like the Repukes. Unless they have one hell of a case (on real crimes) with rock solid evidence (as in, no conjecture), the Blue Dogs and other Dems will balk at impeachment.

And then there is the Senate... Where our majority is all due to UnHoly Joe. We would need 17 Rethugs to flip sides to secure the conviction. If you think that can happen, I have a bridge in NYC I'd like to sell ya.

While not impeaching may be bad, trying and failing is a thousand times worse.

[sce56]

56. I'm sure there were ;ots of people spouting off claims like yours back in Watergate days!

When the hearings come out with the evidence and there is plenty of that from the Downing street memos to the treasonous act of outing a CIA agent.The clamor will be loud and clear from the populace that they will have no choice but to convict!

[Yukari Yakumo]

68. However...

Does any of that point directly to Bush? Does anyone have anything on one of the most insulated and belligerent miscreants in history? If not, we don't have anything to charge him with.

[onenote]

76. study your history

the vote to commence an impeachment inquiry in the House in the Nixon case was 404-10. You think that's comparable to the situation today?

[BlueStater]

61. We're not a "crowd"

So don't call us that.

[Yukari Yakumo]

69. Nah...

You're just a small band of closed-minded, ill-informed, belligerent extremists who throw absurd temper tantrums if they don't get their way.

Pelosi knows the score far better than anyone here does. She knows she doesn't remotely have the support to even think about moving forward with impeachment.

I'd love to see Penn & Teller cover the "Impeach Now!!1!" crowd. I'd love to see them call them out on their bullshit and to point out just how totally absurd the fuckwits are.

[EFerrari]

75. So, do you work in Nancy's office?

Please tell her this small band of extremists has the support of the progressives in her district. Now, she doesn't have support in D.C. OR at home.

[BlueStater]

120. Pelosi is a pitiful coward who deserves no one's respect

It's one thing to try and fail. It's another thing to not even try. The fact that the Democrats didn't even attempt impeachment while the war criminal's constant law-breaking and lies continued unabated is going to be recorded as a huge mistake in history. The GOP impeached Clinton for lying about sex. We can't even attempt to impeach this asshole for lying about a war that has killed thousands of people.

But I'm glad to see that you're so amused by those who demand justice that you talk about them in demeaning, untrue fashion. I certainly have more respect for those "fuckwits" than I do for guys like you who are perfectly content with sitting on your hands.

[kenfrequed]

133. Oh really?

You mean like the democrats in congress who voted for the authorization for force in iraq, despite the fact that us ill-informed, belligerent, closed-mineded extremists all were shouting at the top of our lungs that:

There is no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq was not really a threat and was not sponsoring Islamic fundamentalism.

So yeah, why don't we really call out which crowd is full of it. Who was right and who was wrong? The democrats that rolled over with Bush and have given him a free pass on all of this REAL bullshit? Or us ill-informed extremists?

[martymar64]

191. Beats being a collaborator like you.

If Bush declared martial law, you'd be right there cheering him on right next to Nancy and Holy Joe.

[EFerrari]

74. You couldn't be more wrong, on every point.

The people behind this effort know exactly how government runs and, we know exactly what happens when you allow your government to run over you.

And, we have plenty of bridges right here, thanks.

[lark]

117. Sorry, it doesn't have to be a real issue

It can be something as assinine as getting a blow job! How could you forget that??

[petgoat]

122. A hell of a case, real crimes: Bush admitted on Nat'l TV that he ordered illegal wiretaps.

Open and shut case. Impeach!

[kenfrequed]

132. uhm

There is nothing worse than not trying to impeach. The crimes against the constitution are grave and if we allow this to stand without correction our decendents, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, Libertarian, or whatever will inherit a nation that is that much closer to despotism.

We cannot allow this administrations acts to be considered the minimum bar for future presidents and those serving in the executive branch.

[martymar64]

190. Fuck impeachment, that's letting them off easy

We need a million armed citizens to march on Washington and lay siege to the White House and remove him by force if necessary. The Declaration of Independence spells out explicitly what we must do.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

52. It most certainly IS "outrageous and unacceptable"...

...and "off the table" is Speaker Pelosi's legacy.



...as well as other little legacy-builders like this:

Pelosi vows no 'blank check' on Iraq funds, Wants Bush to justify use of additional troops

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | January 8, 2007

http://boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/08/pelosi_vows_no_blank_check_on_iraq_funds/

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Democrats would not give President Bush a "blank check" to continue the war in Iraq, and suggested that Democratic leaders may seek to deny the administration funding to send more troops to Iraq.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, repeatedly rejected suggestions that Democrats would cut off funding for the war, a step being urged by many liberal activists. But if the president wants a surge in US troops in Iraq -- a step he is expected to outline this week -- Democrats might move to stop him from using any new funds for that purpose, she said.

"If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now," Pelosi said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"The American people and the Congress support those troops," she added. "But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions."

[martymar64]

192. That pic makes her look like Fire Marshall Bill in a wig and a dress

Let me tell ya something!!!

[crimsonblue]

54. i'm not sure how anyone can run on an impeach bush platform...

considering he will be out of office by the time they would get into office. But I do agree with the sentiment that giving up their Constitutional Powers is bullshit.

[stimbox]

62. That's not the only plank in her platform...

She is a Kucinich progressive.

ISSUES SHIRLEY IS ON THE TABLE FOR:

Accountability in government (impeachment)
Our House of Representatives was given the right (and obligation) in our Constitution created by our Founding Fathers to investigate and take action when improprieties have been brought to its attention. Whole books have been written on the actions of the current administration and George Bush has admitted in public that he has acted in ways inconsistent with his duties to uphold our Constitution. So Congress must act and do so expediently. To answer the question of "why bother?" - First, the world is watching what we the people do here. We no longer have allies in the world community and if we continue to be sheep we will no longer be welcome as meaningful participants. Second, if we allow lawlessness of our supposed elected officials, what kind of precedent does that set for future administrations? Even this past year, Blackwater and Halliburton have been constructing 200 "detention centers" here on American soil for the "growing domestic insurgency." And just recently, the FBI has granted permission for small businesses with security guards, under martial law, to be able to shoot at American citizens (google "infragard"). What next? - this madness must be stopped.

Bringing home the troops from Iraq (within 90 days)
There is adequate evidence that we were given flagrantly wrong information that caused many members of Congress to believe that it was necessary to invade Iraq. As a result, not only have many of our brave soldiers given the ultimate sacrifice, but many more have returned home to an inadequate care system. Plus millions of Iraqi citizens have been killed, their infrastructure destroyed and their environment polluted with depleted uranium. Is it any wonder that the remaining people are in an uproar? The longer we stay, the more we are hated. Congress has the power of the purse strings-yet, every time, this administration asks for billions more for the occupation of Iraq, our House and Senate agrees. No more! A clear plan has been set forth by Congressman Dennis Kucinich in the House to transfer authority to UN peacekeeping forces and, upon approval, bring our troops home within 90 days.

Single-payer healthcare (HR676)
Here in California, many concerned citizens have been working on sharing information on SB 840, a bill for single-payer universal health care. It is not enough to say that one is in favor of universal health care-that keeps dollars that Americans need to live on, going to the administration of insurance companies, sometimes as much as 30% of premiums. Again, Congress is sitting on a plan, (HR 676-the Conyers-Kucinich bill), that would reduce those costs down to 3-4% and provide the kind of healthcare that all the other "rich" nations of the world already have. It was recently reported that Americans rank 27th in their "healthiness" compared with the rest of the world, yet guess who spends the most?

Ending NAFTA & the WTO
What sounded like a clever idea to some, "let’s employ the under-employed of the world" and lift other countries’ economies, has had a devastating effect on our employment and economy here at home. And these principles are not only being applied to manufacturing jobs, in places where workers’ rights and protective environmental principles are often ignored, but in the field of technology as well. Let’s institute "fair" trade policies that give all countries and all workers what they deserve.

Abolishing the electoral college
When our country was founded, it was felt that this type of representation would be most helpful in having the election finished and confirmed quickly because of the great distance between voting areas. But with such a large population currently, all very well connected, it seems so much more appropriate that we simply tally the “popular” vote, i.e. one voter=one vote. This prevents campaigning for our Presidential election to be focused in certain states, while virtually ignoring others. At the same time, all citizens’ right to vote must be protected, from the registration process through to the tallying and transmission process, ensuring that there is no corruptible software or administrative personnel processes.

Stopping human-induced climate disruption
Our energy policies need to be examined with a fine-tooth comb. And besides our government and corporations taking responsibility for making sure we have a healthy planet, individuals will want to be more participatory in learning what habits they can change. Education at a very young age will be crucial!

http://www.shirley08.com/issues.php

[trthnd4jstc]

154. I like most of that, but I question removing the Electoral College, though..

I agree with what you say in, "This prevents campaigning for our Presidential election to be focused in certain states, while virtually ignoring others." I like the intent of our Federal System to maintain States' Rights which is an argument for the Electoral College, but I am not a strong supporter of the Electoral College. I am definately not a strong supporter of the Unitary Presidency. I believe in an Executive Council, like Uruguay has. I like this lady a lot though. I hope she wins.

[burrowowl]

55. When and if she gets elected

Bu$h will be out of Office, so she will have to go after him for treason and for war crimes and crimes against humanity, as president doing the same things the Nazis were tried for at the Nuremberg Trials, as well as contravention of treaties signed on by the US, etc.
I hope she does and all those elected to Congress!

[NWHarkness]

57. John McCain says Thank You!

Every bit of energy expended on such nonsense as retroactive impeachment is a bit of energy that is not directed towards defeating the GOp in November.

For god sake people, let's keep our eyes on the prize.

[freefall]

58. I thought the prize was a democratic government. I guess you like

many Democrats in Congress are more interested in winning elections than preserving the Constitution and protecting democracy.

Peace,

freefall

[BlueStater]

60. Right. Let's just let him get away with everything he's ever done...

...and act like the last seven horrible years never happened.

Christ, I can't believe some people on this board.

[Kaleko]

64. Ha ha, isn't that the American way? In polite society at least you simply pretend

everything is fine, fine, fine. Just look at Pelosi's frozen smile. Makes a sane person want to scream for half an hour, no?

[lark]

119. Eyes are firmly on prize

Showing the constitution shredding ultra rich crony capitalist and robber barons that they can't get away with subverting our country to their agenda by having a trial of their front man and exposing his infamy in detail to the country is certainly a worthwhile goal. We need to show them that their glory days are over and cannot come again, and that they aren't just in a holding pattern until the next election. They need to know that they and their co-conspirtators will end up in jail so then they will think twice about future adventures in destroying our country. If the Dems end the billions of corporate giveaways, we will have reduced their chances of taking over again in two very significant ways.

[Zhade]

59. NICE. Their crimes don't just vanish, even if they try to so so themselves.

They can still be held accountable.

I support this challenge. Letting criminals walk is not acceptable. Period.

[Senator]

66. Failure To Impeach Is Why We're Losing To McCain

Because the DC Dems -- and therefore Dems in general -- are seen as willing to SAY anything but DO NOTHING.

The dynamics of the election will not change if all we do is cower in a moral corner, clutching our tired laudry list of policy issues, and repeat the mantra "hope, change, hope, change..."

The public/electorate is not stupid. They know a bunch of pathetic rationalizers when they see them. As Bill says -- they'll choose "wrong and strong" over "weak and right" every time. They're being given no reason not to.

Impeachment IS our "positive agenda." And may well be the ONLY way to reunite our once-great nation.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic, (and legal, legislative, electoral, diplomatic...) option.

Note to "Strategerists": It is the attempt itself that holds the power. The ultimate outcome of the effort (which is presumed to be known by all the usual defeatist suspects) is virtually irrelevant.

---

[ingac70]

67. Uhh.. great, except Bush will be out of office.

A little late then, dontcha think?

[rateyes]

71. If I lived in San Francisco, Golub would get my vote. nt

[stimbox]

107. Send her some $$$$, it's the next best thing!

http://actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18849

[Time for change]

73. If our present Congress won't deal with it, our next one should, no matter how little time is left

The crimes that Bush has committed are the most dangerous crimes against our nation in its history. Therefore, even if/when he's out of office they still should be investigated, and the appropriate action taken.

[susankh4]

81. That explains why

she looks so damned grumpy all the time.

Thanks for the one up.

K&R

[abq e streeter]

84. Dammit, misread the headline momentarily--thought it said Pelosi promises...

impeachment, and I thought FINALLY --its a miracle; I wonder what pushed it over the top for her... then I realized it was a challenger. Which is great, I hope she can unseat Pelosi, but had this wonderful moment where I thought the "leadership" of our party had finally rediscovered the constitution. Oh well.....

[Myrina]

85. its kinda sorta 5 years too late ...

:shrug: ... at this point it would only be 'ceremonial', it wouldn't save any more soldiers' lives, nor would it save what's left of the economy.

[petgoat]

124. It's never too late to defend the Constitution. Unless you're saying it's already gone? nt

[Gman]

86. It might be important for this woman to have a clue how Congress works

She seems to think she's running for Speaker of The House.

What a maroon.

[pacalo]

98. My exact thought. Taking Pelosi's seat won't make her Speaker of the House.

[stimbox]

108. Where does it say she thinks she will be speaker?

Not in the article.
Not on Shirley's web page.
You Pelousy supporters are pulling that out of your asses.
You must have really large colons to be able to fit so much up there along with your heads.

[pacalo]

128. In the OP line: "Pelosi challenger promises Bush impeachment".

And, believe me, I'm not a Pelosi supporter. She deserves to be replaced.

[stimbox]

153. That's a stretch.

"Pelosi challenger promises Bush impeachment" = "she thinks she gets to be speaker"

I suggest reading more than the OP title.

[pacalo]

179. No, it's not a stretch. Promising impeachment is a stretch.

It implies that she will be in a position to assure impeachment. Only the Speaker is in a position to say what goes on the agenda.

[stimbox]

208. Read the article, watch her video, read her positions. No where is she "promising" impeachment.

Learn how to read, ok? Or somebody might be able to imply that you are illiterate.

[pacalo]

231. Did you read the OP line?

You're a first-class jerk looking to win a pissing contest, clearly.

[sce56]

123. And where did you get that from?

She is running to replace Nancy in the CA 08 district.

And a lot of people in that district believe Nancy is wrong here are a whole bunch of them!



And is that a coconut Maroon you are asking about?



the proper word is Moron!

If you want you can get educated on her platform, her video and her bio right here

[Gman]

159. Oh, why don't you just kiss my ass

[sce56]

161. You know all you had to do was say oops I made a typo! I do that a lot FFF

As in Fat Finger Function and thank the gods of technology for the spell check function which unfortunately does not work in the subject line! So I will not do as you propose but I will not engage in a silly turn away from the main topic here which is Nancy needs to be reminded she works for us "We the people" not the Bush Junta or the Corporate masters.



And this is who we should be taking our anger out on not fellow DUer's

[npincus]

87. Can people from NJ vote for her?

She's got my vote.

[Gman]

102. That's the beauty of Congressional districts... you can't

and I can't and anyone that doesn't live in her district can't. It's strictly an issue for her constituents in her district. People across the country can get mad at her, but that's all they can do.

[stimbox]

109. You can't vote for her, but you can donate.

http://actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18849

[JeanGrey]

88. Oh for God's Sake - how stupid do we look as a party when

this kind of nonsense is aired - sigh.

[Sheets of Easter]

89. Because empty gestures are so effective.

Sorry, but she's have only a few weeks to get that done.

I would have loved to have seen Bush impeached- two years ago. To do it now, as some sort of symbolic move, seems pointless to me.

[petgoat]

126. Yeah, who needs the Bill of Rights? We weren't using them anyway. nt

[martymar64]

193. We can still arrest and indict him after he leaves office

give him some of what Siegelman's been getting. Or even better, we can ship him to Fallujah and let them give him the Saddam treatment.

[malaise]

91. You go Lady!

Impeach

[sabbat hunter]

92. silly platform

by the time this woman is sworn in, if she were to beat pelosi, Bush would be out of office, or nearly so(congress takes office Jan 1st, president 3 weeks later)

[Tarc]

94. Was just about to say the same thing

Let's see some of her positions on actual issues, rather than symbolic and empty gestures.

[martymar64]

194. So you prefer letting him off scot free?

Because unless people grow a fucking spine, that is exactly what will happen. And Pelousy will be the one we can blame for it. We can indict her as an accessory.

[TheCowsCameHome]

96. Waste of time.

He's gone in 10 months anyway.

Too little, too late.

[FiveGoodMen]

111. You're sure he's leaving?

[craigshotspot]

99. I'd vote for it

Is there time to move there and register to vote in the district? Who cares if its an empty gesture people? this is what's wrong with people. They don't give a crap about making a statement any more. What happened to having principles? Maybe if someone took the first step to impeachment it would get the ball rolling for criminal charges for lying to American people and holding him responsible of the deaths of the American soldiers lives that he sent to Iraq. Does that not matter? People are also spouting off about caring about the troops; so heres a chance to demonstrate it. Ole Nancy really pissed me off when she immediately cowed down on that issue when she was elected. If you command and act like a leader, people would follow. Look at Bush as a example. His dumb ass didn't know anything and he got put into office twice and lead the country into all kinds of bogus deals and no bother questioned his authority because he said and that was it. The dems that led congress were timid.

[stimbox]

104. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

I'll be joining Shirley on Thursday.

:woohoo:

[yurbud]

105. KICK

[yurbud]

106. everybody should give her a couple of bucks AND THEN send Pelosi a note saying you did so and why

[sce56]

125. Not a bad idea! Thanks !

[yurbud]

129. where is that photo?

[sce56]

157. Nancy's District , Ocean Beach, San Francisco! Go to Beachimpeach.org

http://www.beachimpeach.org/ They have videos here also
http://www.beachimpeach.org/bi2/index.html
They have done 3 of these. Now don't tell me theres nobody in Nancy's district that are not pissed at her for refusing to allow the hearings begin!

[petgoat]

127. Sec'y of War Belknap's resignation in 1876 did not stop his impeachment

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm


On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.

This failed to stop the House. Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. During May, the Senate heard more than 40 witnesses, as House managers argued that Belknap should not be allowed to escape from justice simply by resigning his office.

[chapel hill dem]

134. Thanks for researching this. It is fascinating.

The last paragraph of the article you cited really gets to my original point of the utility of pursuing GWB and Cheney during the two weeks after the Congress is sworn in and before the POTUS is sworn in.

"On August 1, 1876, the Senate rendered a majority vote against Belknap on all five articles. As each vote fell short of the necessary two thirds, however, he won acquittal. Belknap was not prosecuted further; he died in 1890.

Years later, the Senate finally decided that it made little sense to devote its time and energies to removing from office officials who had already removed themselves."

I doubt that the R's would ever break ranks and vote to convict. All that would be accomplished is listing GWB and Cheney as "impeached but acquitted" in the history books. This may be a just cause as long as the process does not delay important legislation work of the Congress fixing the problems these two created.

Again, I appreciate your citations.

[petgoat]

139. What legislation can possibly be more important than defending the Constitution? nt

[MADem]

136. You should have quoted the last paragraph where the Senate changed the rules

When people are GONE from office, that's the end of it.

Years later, the Senate finally decided that it made little sense to devote its time and energies to removing from office officials who had already removed themselves.

[petgoat]

140. It doesn't say the Senate changed the rules. nt

[MADem]

142. the Senate finally decided that it made little sense to devote its time and energies to removing

from office officials who had already removed themselves.

They CLARIFIED their conduct in the case of impeachment, and they "decided" that voluntary removal from office by way of resignation OBVIATED the need for impeachment.

The Sense of the Senate is as close to any "rule" on this issue as you are gonna get. That "is" the rule.

[petgoat]

143. To take the article as an official position of the Senate is absurd.

It appears to be the opinion of the writer. There is no indication that the
Senate changed the rules.

[MADem]

146. What MOXIE--it's the article YOU dragged in to prove YOUR point!

No cherrypicking allowed, now.

It's not the opinion of the writer, either. It's historical fact. It's the way they run it, like it, or not.

EDIT--I should point out, in case you forgot, which apparently you have, that the site's source is SENATE.GOV. I rather doubt they allow the Senate Historian to "make shit up."

But whatever.

[np33]

148. Do you believe

That after Bush leaves office he should not have to answer for any of the many crimes he committed while in office? Kinda of like "oh well this one got away"

[MADem]

149. What I believe is that once he leaves office he is "beyond impeachment."

Like it, or not. Actually, I do not "believe" this--I KNOW it.

Perhaps "The Almighty" will hit him with lightning while he cuts brush in Crawford, maybe that will be his fate.

Maybe his liver will fail. Maybe he'll drop his chainsaw on his dick and bleed to death.

Maybe someone will sue him civilly in some fashion.

I don't KNOW what will happen to him in the greater scheme of "justice" for his transgressions. I do know that the odds are "excellent to outstanding" that Bush will not be impeached.

That's just FACT, not desire.

All I can say is that the arguments broached here about 'impeachment after leaving office' are the wispy wishes of the willfully ignorant, who insist, despite the presentation of decisive evidence to the contrary, that such a thing is possible or plausible, when it plainly is NOT.

I find it very tiresome that when one presents factual information here, on this forum, that an illogical rejoinder when no further refutation is possible is always a veiled accusation that one supports the abrogation of justice or the further empowerment of the GOP.

Facts, you see, are STUBBORN things. They know no parties or candidates.

[np33]

152. I guess the problem

I have is that you seem to have the attitude that we all should just get over it because he got away with his transgressions?

[MADem]

160. Again, from what dark orafice did you pull that idea?

I trade in facts, not wishes. Reality, not dreams.

You don't like my stubborn facts, and because you do not, you accuse me of having an "attitude" about it. You try to tell me what I think, without evidence. You use that word "seem" when it "seems" like you're making stuff up and trying to ascribe to me views that I do not possess.

Here's my "attitude"--why don't YOU come up with something approaching a "better" idea than impeachment?

Let me put that "onus" on you, and others who are pissed off at me for telling the simple truth, for a change. Come up with something that will work, that will fly, that people can get behind, and that will effect justice.

Not an impeachment pipe dream.

Because this impeachment idea is simply asinine and absurd. You don't impeach after an officeholder has vacated the position. The very Senate website says so.

Facts, as I said, are stubborn things.

[petgoat]

163. You're wrong about that. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits impeachment after leaving office.

The constitutions of Virginia and Delaware at one time provided that
governors could be impeached only after they left office.

[MADem]

165. We aren't talking about Virginia and Delaware, though, are we? Stop being disingenuous.

Why not drag the Constitution of Japan into the argument, too, while you are at it? What that document allowed "at one time" is equally irrelevant.

The Constitution is SILENT about these issues, however, unfortunately for you and your argument, the "sense of the Senate" is what it is. Not silent. They've declared that a resignation obviates impeachment. Departure from office obviates impeachment.

You will NOT see an impeachment after Bush leaves office. The sooner you wrap your mind around that idea, the better. It isn't going to happen.

The Constitution doesn't prohibit "Pink Tutu Friday" in the House of Representatives, either, but that doesn't mean you're going to see every legislator in a pink tutu in two day's time. The Constitution is silent on many, indeed most, minutiae. It's part of the reason why it is such a vital document. By being reasonably unspecific, it allows for modification or interpretation as a result of attitudinal change and better responds to those it serves here in our More Perfect Union--We, The People.

[petgoat]

168. You accuse me of cherry picking. You make up your facts.

I cited part of a page that contained the historical fact I
wanted to spotlight. You claim that the Senate changed
the rules on impeachment, and that an educational essay
on the Senate website represents "the sense of the senate."

Your desperation indicates the bankruptcy of your argument.

The Constitution is NOT unspecific on impeachment. The fairy
tale that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is deliberately vague
is disingenuos. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has a technical
meaning going back to 1386, and the founders were well aware
of its meaning at the time.

We weren't talking about Virginia and Delaware. We were talking
about the claim there's no point in impeaching someone after they've
left office--a claim shown to be absurd by the fact that such a
provision was written into the constitutions of two states.

[MADem]

172. Yes, because the Senate Historian is in the habit of "making shit up."

No offense, but tossing the "desperation" bomb when it's you who is foundering is certainly a lame device on your part. And indicates the bankrupcy of your argument, as well as your woefully incomplete understanding of the impeachment process.

Impeachment is NOT the Senate's job, you know--or perhaps you don't. It sure seems like you don't quite "get" that bit.

The HOUSE impeaches, and the Senate acts on those articles of impeachment with a trial and subsequent conviction or acquittal.

Or they don't. Like when the officeholder has LEFT office. Then, they don't take up the articles, or conduct a trial, even if the House delivers them on a silver tray.

No officeholder, no impeachment trial. It's as simple as that. The Senate has said so.

Elsewhere in this thread I have addressed your insistence (a false insistence, by the way) that there must be a test of any kind to impeach someone. There isn't. The citation that YOU provided (you apparently did not read it) says as much. Gerald Ford WAS right.

Again, we aren't talking about impeaching a Virginia judge or dogcatcher. So your cites with regard to state impeachments ARE irrelevant. The impeachment process varies from state to state, from nation to nation. We're not talking about the process used by states, we're talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I would advise you to stay on topic, stick to fact, and stop tossing dud bomblets, or don't expect me to take you seriously.

[petgoat]

174. I never said anything about a test, and your belief that an historical fluff piece

represents the position of the Senate is absurd.

Please substantiate your claim (in post 136) that the Senate changed the rules
to prohibit trials for those who are out of office.

You make up your facts, and then say I should not be taken seriously.

[MADem]

175. It IS the position of the Senate. Pity you don't like that, but it isn't my problem.

My substantiation is your cite, an official document issued by the US government, the United States SENATE, specifically, and if you don't like that, too bad.

Let's review, one more time.

Resignation obivates the need for impeachment, because impeachment entails REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. Impeachment is NOT a punishment.

Further, the Senate has determeined that once someone has resigned, they NO LONGER HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THEM, because they, like Secretary Belknap (the case you cited), are a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Impact of Resignation


Throughout the Congress' two hundred years, several major questions have dogged impeachment proceedings. One concerns resignations. In general, the resignation of an official puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective, removal from office, has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun in 1974 against President Richard Nixon. However, resignation has not always been a foolproof way to preclude impeachment, as Secretary of War William Belknap found out in 1876. Belknap, tipped off in advance that a House committee had unearthed information implicating him in the acceptance of bribes in return for lucrative Indian trading posts, rushed to the White House and tearfully begged President Ulysses Grant to accept his resignation at ten o'clock on the morning of March 2, 1876. Around three o'clock that afternoon, representatives, furious at both the president and Belknap for thwarting them, impeached Belknap by voice vote anyway. The Senate debated the question of its jurisdiction, in light of Belknap's resignation, and decided by a vote of 37 to 29 that he could be impeached. But at the end of Belknap's sensational trial in the summer of 1876, he was found not guilty of the charges, not because the senators believed him innocent (most did not), but because most had decided they in fact had no jurisdiction over Belknap, then a private citizen.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

[petgoat]

177. That article is ignorant. It doesn't mention the origins of the term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

in English practice.

Since Belknap's case seems to have involved only garden-variety
corruption, it's not surprising that they decided not to convict.

No constitutional principles were involved. In the case of an
executive who has usurped and abused powers, brought the office
into disrepute, and threatened the very system of check and
balances at the heart of our government impeachment is vital.

[MADem]

180. No, the article is not "ignorant." I put more stock in the Senate historian than you, frankly.

You keep moving the goalposts. Cherry picking, or trying to.

And misstating the facts.

Constitutional principles? There weren't any in Clinton's trial, and that didn't stop them from claiming there were. Belknap's behavior certainly brought HIS office into disrepute, but that's not a problem, eh?

More to the point, according to the very articles of impeachment brought against Belknap, those "Constitutional principles" you keep griping about were at issue. Of course, as I've said, and you've dismissed, you can call ANYTHING, even a bad tie, a High Crime and Misdemeanor if you'd like--and you can impeach a ham sandwich.

To cut to the chase, Belknap WAS charged with those "high crimes and misdemeanors" you keep whining about. A snippet from just ONE of the many articles of impeachment brought against the man:

.... basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain, did unlawfully and
corruptly continue said Evans in said position and permit him to maintain said establishment at said
military post during all of said time, to the great injury and damage of the officers and soldiers of
the Army of the United States stationed at said post, as well as of emigrants, freighters, and other
citizens of the United States, against public policy, and to the great disgrace and detriment of the
public service.
Whereby the said William W. Belknap was, as Secretary of War as aforesaid, guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanors in office.

Belknap's case did not meet the measure for conviction solely because there was a JURISDICTIONAL issue, not because the Senate decided that selling appointments and accepting bribes and kickbacks wasn't such a bad thing all of a sudden. The only reason the impeachment progressed at all was because there were more than a few legislators who were PISSED at the guy, and wanted REVENGE against him. He knew his goose was cooked, which was why he resigned.

The Senate went ahead with the trial, because they were angry, too, even though they had no jurisdiction over the man as a private citizen.

Many Senators, including those who voted to acquit, actually thought he was guilty and in their hearts wanted the "revenge" of a conviction, which was why the trial proceeded at all. The "cooling saucer" of the Senate prevailed though, and those acquitting acknowledged (providing an opinion when they voted --that affected the result "conclusively" per the record) that their reasoning had to do with the fact that they lacked jurisdiction.

Specifically:

The Senate, sitting for the trial, thereupon adjourned.
2467. Belknap’s impeachment continued.
The managers alone attended in the Senate on the day the Senate rendered
judgment in the Belknap case.
The respondent in the Belknap trial attended throughout until the
time of rendering judgment.
The President pro tempore announced the result of the vote on each
article and the acquittal of respondent on each.
The vote on the final question in the Belknap trial was affected conclusively
by opinions as to the question of jurisdiction.
Having announced the result of the voting in the Belknap case, the
President pro tempore directed the entry of a judgment of acquittal.
The adjournment without day of the Senate sitting for the Belknap
trial was pronounced after vote of the Senate.

The phrase "resigned to escape charges" is operative, here. That is what Belknap did, and how he got away with it.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=hinds_prec_vol_iii&docid=f:hinds_lxxvii.pdf

[petgoat]

189. It's not between me and the Senate Historian. It's between the legal staff

of the House Impeachment Inquiry and the anonymous author of that piece on the
Senate website. And yes, the piece is ignorant because it does not discuss the
technical meaning of the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" which speaks
directly to the high purposes of impeachment.

There certainly was a constitutional principle in the Clinton trial: whether lying
under oath in court was sufficiently damaging to the Presidency as to justify
removal from office, though the fact that the vote split along strict party lines
suggests that no one took the constitutional principle very seriously.

Belknap's corruption brought the office of the Secy of War into disrepute, but
perhaps the impeachment was meant as much as an attack on Grant's mal-administration
(which was about the most corrupt in US history) as on Beklknap's. There must be a
reason the Justice Dept. did not pursue federal criminal charges after Belknap left
office.

In any case, the question as to whether post-term impeachment is possible is a
moot point until it becomes clear that impeachment within the term is not possible.

Since Bush already admitted on National TV to an impeachable felony, ordering
illegal wiretaps, the trial could happen in one day.

[MADem]

198. Richard Baker is no idiot. Like I said, I'll trust his website, that he CAREFULLY oversees,

before I will trust anything you have to say. He has credibility, you do not. He's been on the job for over thirty years, and he takes his duties quite seriously.

One more time--a High Crime and Misdemeanor is anything the House wants to claim it is--from getting a blow job to lying about it, to taking kickbacks, and even wearing an ugly tie. You can INDICT anyone for anything. There is no "test" for CHARGES. No matter how much you insist that there is. It just isn't so.

The reason that no one went after Belknap from The Justice Department after he left isn't because there was a weakness in the case, it was because the same guy who hired Belknap hired the Attorney General.

Good grief, that's pretty obvious. That's a complete "Duh!" frankly. It's why there's little zeal for going after nefarious and lawbreaking members of the Bush Administration on the part of the Justice Department nowadays.

Your last remark (which suggests that Bush has committed an "impeachable felony" without any due process whatsoever to back up that assertion, without even establishing via that pesky due process that what he did is, in fact, a felony, or that it is "impeachable" --who knows how many ass-covering "signing statements" are floating about, now?) suggests that you don't really care about the law, at all, unless it bends to your wishes.

If you want him punished, you're going to have to get him after he leaves office and find someone to sue him in a court of law.

You aren't going to see him impeached in the House, nor tried in the Senate, no matter how much your heart desires it.

[petgoat]

220. You keep with the ad hominems. It's not about me, it's about the

lawyers for the House Committee on Impeachment.

You keep putting words in my mouth about a test. I never said
anything about it. You're discrediting your own argument.

The assertion that Bush had admitted to a felony when he admitted
on TV that he ordered the illegal wiretaps was the opinion of an
ABC news legal analyst:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=4911758

ABC7 Legal Analyst Dean Johnson: "You can't impeach a president for incompetence."

Dean Johnson is a former prosecutor and he says the strongest legal case against Mr. Bush would likely be for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of millions of American telephone calls.

ABC7 Legal Analyst Dean Johnson: "Section 1809 of the FISA Act provides that any public official who engages in a wiretap, without authorization, is guilty of a felony - I think it's beyond a reasonable dispute that President Bush violated that statute."

[MADem]

228. Look, you are laboring under false assumptions. I simply cannot help you

because you are woefully misinformed and you seem determined to insist that Bush's White House cousel (who learned his craft working under JOHN DEAN during Nixon) hasn't made damn sure that Bush's ASS is well-covered, to the point that uncovering it will take action at the Supreme Court level.

You can impeach a ham sandwich, as I have said. For anything. You may not get a conviction, but you can call ANYTHING a "high crime and misdemeanor."

But you do go on and take the word of an "ABC legal analyst" who no doubt was talking about POLITICAL fallout, not rule of law. And who likely isn't privy to BushCo's clever machinations, executive orders, or those signing statements. The "national security" excuse trumps EVERYTHING.

This sentence is KEY: Just because I argue from a viewpoint of reality does not mean I am "pleased" by that reality, so don't even go there.

You have a nice day now.

[petgoat]

233. Wow what frantic fantasies!

So Bush's legal counsel has built an inassailable wall around
Bush's butt, but Congress can impeach a ham sandwich for anything
or nothing. You'd better make up your mind.

Actually, I do not dispute the proposition that "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors" can mean whatever Congress wants, though I suppose
that if it went to the Supremes they could hold that it must mean
what the founders intended, which was that it conform to the technical
term from English practice of several centuries.

Then you try to claim the ABC legal analyst was talking not about the law,
but about the political environment--when the quote clearly talks about
the statute that was violated (Section 1809 of the FISA Act), calls it
a felony, and the announcer characterizes this as "the strongest legal case
against Mr. Bush."

Then you try to say that National Security trumps everything when everyone
knows that the National Security scam is what every tyrant hides behind, and
what the Constitution is designed to protect against.

You keep on discrediting your own argument.

Not long ago, talk of impeachment was nearly as unwelcome at DU as talk of
9/11. Now it's becoming conventional wisdom.

[MADem]

241. Do you think you're being cleverly insulting using the "frantic" word?

It's getting a bit tired and repetitive. Not working, either. Sorry. I know you are trying.

If anyone's frantic, here, it isn't me.

You go on and on, substituting your wishes for facts, and are getting angry when I refuse to suspend reality and get on board your fantasy train.

I don't agree with you. I have provided a cogent set of reasons and REAL argument, cites and facts. You provide opinion and you don't even back that up.

One more time--you bookmark this thread, and come back and tell me when YOU are right, and I am wrong.

I suspect I will have seen the last of you if you'd get off your ass and just do that.

[petgoat]

243. Your arguments are unintentionally anti-tautological. nt

[MADem]

245. I really don't care anymore. Think what you like. And do check back with me

when that impeachment happens.

[petgoat]

249. Oh so when fascism comes you'll say "See I told you it wasn't worth fighting it." nt

[MADem]

253. You're an expert at mischaracterization. Get back to me when your scenario plays out. NT

[MilesColtrane]

218. "The Constitution is NOT unspecific on impeachment."

Exactly.

It specifically says "all civil officers".

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Once someone is out of office, they are not a "civil officer".

Bush will still be a criminal though, and can be subject to prosecution.

[petgoat]

225. That you can impeach a civil officer does not mean you can't impeach a former civil officer.

It's not just about removing them from office. It's also about
prohibiting them from holding future offices.

[martymar64]

196. He can still be indicted and prosecuted for crimes committed when in ofc

He'll no longer have "executive privilege" to protect. He'll just be an unemployed politician with no protection of the office. It's not like he can pardon himself. We won't need impeachment, he's subject to the same laws as you and I as an ex-president.

So go on and poo-poo any efforts at bringing him to justice, it just shows where your real sympathies are.

[MADem]

200. Yes, he can. And yes, he is a regular citizen at that point. But he can't be impeached.

And as for "Executive Privilege" it depends--he has it for actions he takes WHILE IN OFFICE. So long as he stays out of trouble after he leaves office, good luck getting at him, unless it's some sort of civil suit, and even at that, it will be tough to make it happen.

Why is it that people like you shoot the messenger at DU?

I've never understood it.

I am not "pooh-poohing" (as opposed to poo poo, what babies do in diapers) efforts at bringing Bush to justice.

I am pooh-poohing this asinine pipe-dream FICTION that you're going to see Bush impeached.

You bookmark this thread--come back when I'm wrong and make fun of me.

By the way, if you don't retract that "where your real sympathies are" insult, I will take strong issue with it.

[martymar64]

201. Then offer up some fucking solutions

Quit just "pooh poohing" (Thanks Grammar/Spelling Police!) everyone efforts to call these criminals to account. All I ever see from you is bashing those of us that want to go after them and trying to excoriate us for wanting to do something about the situation instead of just sitting there and taking it up the ass like you seem to be advocating, thus the sympathies comment. When you join us in going after them, THEN I'll take it back. Until then, you're just going to be another supporter of the status quo, one of those "liberals" that Phil Ochs sang about. Deal with it.

[MADem]

202. I beg your "fucking" pardon? This isn't MY dog. I'm not the one WHINING

about impeachment, and how it will get "the JUSTICE" that some seek. I think you've got quite the trick to bag that guy, because without the votes in the Senate (and they do NOT exist) there is no "there" there.

I like where Bush is now--in a BOX. A caged, lame duck, whose legacy is draining away every day. I'd rather let him watch, from the comfort and prison of his ranch, his "legacy" deconstructed before his very eyes. I want him to live to a ripe old age, and, year after year, see him named as the WORST President EVER, despite any and all attempts at rehabilitating his legacy.

And too bad if you don't think that's justice, because the odds are good to excellent that this is as good as it will get. Like it or not.

Deal with THAT.

Oh, and what you did is AGAINST THE DU RULES. I was trying to tell you nicely, but I see you're one of those (who don't read the rules before you shoot off your mouth. Maybe you could use a refresher.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

211. One more time, LEARN TO READ. Develop an ability to argue in nuanced fashion.

Like an ADULT.

You have a nice day, now, "Tough talker."

[fascisthunter]

223. Yes It Does Show Where That Person's Sympathies Really are (nt)

[rinsd]

144. Nicely done.

[MADem]

147. Thank you.

Now I'm being challenged because the introducer of the article no longer likes the source!

:rofl:

[petgoat]

164. I introduced the article because it was a convenient source for a piece of history

about a Secretary of War who was impeached after he had already resigned.
That is a fact.

The assertion that the Senate repented of this principle is an opinion.
There is no reason to think that the article has any legal force whatsoever.
But the fact recounted therein does.

[MADem]

166. No, it is NOT an opinion. It is a fact, courtesy of Senate Dot Gov.

The source of your citation.

Sorry, you can't cherry pick the "facts" you like. You also have no judicial power to decide which "facts" are "legal" and which are not.

And your effort to so do says something a bit insincere about your willingness to discuss this matter honestly.

[petgoat]

169. The fact is that the writer of the educational fluff piece expressed an opinion.

You have nowhere cited any support for your claim that
the Senate changed the rules.

Your arguments might be better if you could curb your
emotional antipathy to impeachment.

[MADem]

173. Like I said above (since you like to carry on the same conversation in three places) the Senate

Historian just likes to "make shit up."

I've cited left, right, and back and forth. In three places. Even though you cannot argue a point worth a damn, and you don't let a paucity of facts interfere with your series of meaningless diatribes.

I've proved my assertions--using your citations, which apparently, you are unable to read and comprehend before you post them. You're the one who hasn't come up with anything but opinion and emotion--now you're accusing me of "emotional antipathy to impeachment" because I won't buy your poorly argued, halfassed, and lousily formulated assertions.

"Emotional antipathy" has nothing to do with employing BASIC intelligence, essential historical knowledge, and simple facts--something beyond your abilities, apparently, because you've "proved" nothing to this point. At all.

There's nothing I would have liked better than a good impeachment--six years ago. That ship has sailed, though. Even if you don't like it.

I tell you what--you bookmark this thread, "Petgoat," and you come on back at me with both barrels WHEN impeachment happens, since you're so confident that this crackpot, halfassed, pipe-dreaming possibility exists.

I suspect that, in future months, I won't hear from you on this issue again.

[np33]

195. I think anyone

With the knowledge of how our Constitution works can understand that many parts of it are left up to interpretation. The Constitution is interpreted everyday in our Judicial system. Yet you keep harping on that you know the facts and we're all just too stupid or ignorant to understand them. There are no absolutes in the Constitution. The issue of impeachment has been dealt with very little throughout the history of this country.
I think you are the one being obtuse "removal from office" is the punishment of impeachment. Meaning that with a more open mind you would see that impeachment could also be used as a discovery for all the illegal actions that were committed during this administration. An impeachment process after Bush has left office could also bring evidence into the open that could be used in possible criminal and civil trials. With no impeachment none of these things are ever possible. Because no judge in the country nor is anyone in the International stage going to take action against Bush particularly if the American legislature does nothing.

So we either start the ball rolling with impeachment or him and Cheney get to retire with their billions of blood money in some South American war criminal haven.

[MADem]

199. You have one thing somewhat right. There ARE few ABSOLUTES in the

Constitution. FEW, not NONE.

You've actually backed up some of my points with that comment, as one of the "non-absolutes" is what constitutes a High Crime and Misdemeanor.

I don't know where you get that bullshit "characterizing" of what I said. I never called you stupid or ignorant, but find your remarks along those lines stupid and insulting, frankly.

Which makes me disinclined to engage you, since you apparently can't discuss anything without being confrontational.

However, I will say that you err in your comments about impeachment. Go "do the Google" and do some research. As a nation, we've got quite a lot of experience with it--not much Presidential experience, but we aren't shy on judicial impeachments, certainly, at all, or impeachments of other government officials. The list is fairly long.

Impeachment is not a punishment. Do the Google on that, too, I'm not about to educate you further, as I find you rude.

You could try using it as "discovery" after the fact, but that is NOT its purpose. And impeachments are not conducted IN ORDER TO gather evidence for civil trial. Give that idea up. It's cart-before-horse, and it will not fly.

Shoot the messenger all you'd like, it doesn't change that essential truth.

You bookmark this thread, too, and come back and do the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" at me if I am wrong.

I doubt I'll see that, though. I'm quite confident I won't.

[np33]

205. Its funny that

You accuse me of being confrontational but almost every comment you have made on this thread has been brought with an overtone of anger. Anger of what anger that we want Bush held responsible. Anyways in terms of the body of your response. I'm going to break it down point by point.


"However, I will say that you err in your comments about impeachment. Go "do the Google" and do some research. As a nation, we've got quite a lot of experience with it--not much Presidential experience, but we aren't shy on judicial impeachments, certainly, at all, or impeachments of other government officials. The list is fairly long."

You can pipe down because I assumed that we were talking about "Presidential Impeachments". But maybe I should have clarified that for you more.

"Impeachment is not a punishment. Do the Google on that, too, I'm not about to educate you further, as I find you rude."

I also never said that Impeachment was the punishment rather its the process of determining wrong doing if any of a President. However WHAT I DID say was that "removal from office" was the punishment for impeachment. So again you can pipe down a little further with the anger.


"You could try using it as "discovery" after the fact, but that is NOT its purpose. And impeachments are not conducted IN ORDER TO gather evidence for civil trial. Give that idea up. It's cart-before-horse, and it will not fly."

Again before you responded with your usual anger at anyone that dares to talk about impeaching Bush you should have read my entire statement in which I said that the "Impeachment Process" could bring to light any evidence of wrong doing for future legal actions BOTH criminal and civil. Also I thought we both agreed that the Constitution has very little absolutes in its text. Remember judges, legislatures, attorneys, etc are not robots so though YOU MAY FEEL THAT impeachment shouldn't be used in this manner that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire legislature would agree with your sentiment. Granted I don't think there is a shot in hell that Congress will take any steps to Impeachment even if Bush had another 3 years left in office. Because this group has shown almost no backbone. This is just discussing an impeachment in a hypothetical sense.

The difference between you and the people (myself included)you have been arguing against is that all you have done is sit in judgment and deem yourself the official authority on Presidential Impeachments; while offering no solutions of your own thinking. I think people would be more receptive of your positions if you actually offered some kind of solution which you deemed an "appropriate" for course of action.

[MADem]

209. You can't read my mind. Your thesis is erroneous. Thanks for your input, though.

:eyes:

[np33]

213. Nice reply

Like I said you have no thought of your own to add to the conversation other then to sit in judgement of everyone else's ideas but offer none of your own.

[np33]

214. Why do you have that picture

In your signature? Inconsistent much

[MADem]

216. I can distinguish between a wish, a hope and a probability. I live in the real world. NT

[np33]

222. Is that

crickets I hear for your proposed solutions?

[MADem]

227. Is that

failure to comprehend my view on this issue?

Is that an flopsweat effort to switch the discussion from an idiotic, halfassed, demand on YOUR part for an impeachment that will not happen, to insisting that I do YOUR WORK for you?

If you want Bush gone, you get to work there, Skippy, and do that job yourself. Don't pull those bullshit "I don't have a retort so I'll pull the "switch topic/crickets" internet trick on ME. I've been around here too long to put up with clownish and amateurish baiting like that. It's the mark of a small mind, that tactic, you know. If you don't want to be regarded in that fashion, you might think about dispensing with that little trick--it's visible from a mile away.

Here's my view, not that you give a shit, and I really don't care if you do.

I like seeing the guy in his own private hell, desperately trying to salvage an unsalvageable two terms. I LIKE the idea that he'll have to hear, year in and year out, that he was, indeed, the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Reading the full thread IS helpful before you shoot off your mouth. Or have you been munching those crickets you keep mumbling about, and you're simply confused?

Get this through that flamebaiting skull of your--it is not for ME to bail your ass out, simply because you're backing a shitty and poorly conceived construct (impeachment between now and JAN 09). I reject your pathetic effort to try to shift the focus.

You REALLY want the asshole gone, at this LATE date, YOU come up with "a plan."

I'm having too much fun watching him twist in the wind, a lame duck who can't do shit without a Democratic House and Senate.

My predictions--you cannot, and you will not, come up with anything viable to "punish" Bush. And that's up to YOU, there, Skippy, not me. He may be an ass, but he's a clever ass.

Bush will have to suffer under the burden of his failed legacy; that will be his "sentence;" he will NOT be impeached.

You CAN --and I hope you DO--bookmark this thread, and come back and give me the old "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" when you are proved right and I am proved wrong.

I'll bet, though, that I won't see your ass doing that. Because it ain't gonna happen.

So, now, Internet Tough Guy, you have yourself a swell day, heah?

[np33]

230. You have been

Very nasty towards anyone that has disagreed with you on this topic. Yet you are quick to accuse everyone else of making personal attacks on you. So before you advise me to read the entire thread before "shooting off my mouth" read your own words.


Your thesis is based on a complete falsehood. Why because you actually think Bush gives a shit about what the average person thinks of him. Him and all his cronies are now sitting pretty and gearing up for retirement in some non-extradition country. So you really think he cares about the numbers of lives he's caused by his actions or that he actually think he did anything wrong? You are very misguided if your operating under that belief.

Normally I wouldn't say this but since you have been a complete asshole to almost everyone that has disagreed with you all I can say is that I hope you leave this thread because your adding nothing other then insults. And the nonsense that "he's going to be living in his own personal hell" yea right btw if you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell to you. My original assertion stands about your opinion you have nothing to add, after all your fighting and spitting hate on everyone else's ideas you still have yet to add anything of worth that could be remotely construed as a solution. No him sitting at home feeling bad isn't a solution genius

[MADem]

240. No, I have not. If you think that, you need to step away from your keyboard.

I am not nasty, and I do not "accuse."

I simply don't let people substitute "wishes" for "facts."

Sorry if you don't like that.

It's pointless talking to you further. You're petulant, personally insulting, and venturing into "make shit up" land.

[petgoat]

244. You are not nasty and do not accuse--but your opponent is petulant, insulting, and makes shit up.

And by the way, impeachment will never happen because
it is just not fated. The gods do not smile upon it.
It's hopeless.

Is that a fair characterization of your argument?

[MADem]

246. No, it's an unfair and inaccurate characterization, but that's about par for the course with you.

:hi:

You get back to me when it DOES happen, now, and tell me how wrong I was!

[petgoat]

250. You're up pretty late for Massachusetts. More tuned to Hawaii time. nt

[MADem]

252. I'm on travel. NT

[martymar64]

197. Can we count you in the "Leave Bush Alone!!!" camp?

We know "your girl" will let him off scot free, just like her husband did for Bush the First.

[Freddie Stubbs]

234. From that same article:

Years later, the Senate finally decided that it made little sense to devote its time and energies to removing from office officials who had already removed themselves.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm

[petgoat]

237. But it does make sense to impeach officials who subvert the constitution and the system of gov't

to clearly draw the line that executives must not cross.

This isn't about getting Bush. He can be indicted and
imprisoned and shipped to the Hague in chains after he's
out of office.

This is about defending the constitution and defining the
limits to executive powers--otherwise every president in the
future can claim Bush's expanded powers.

[catalinacat]

137. Good for you - You go girl!

At least someone has some guts to try and get this criminal.

[bjobotts]

151. Pelosi stands in front of the microphones and declares FISA amnesty

is not about protecting the telecoms or national security but to protect this administration from its blatant lawbreaking and misuse of power...and then still refuses to start impeachment proceedings. "He's been breaking the law and is trying to cover it up but I'm not going to hold him accountable for it".

WTF Pelosi??????????

[texshelters]

182. Pelosi lost my support when she voted for NAFTA

Way back when Pelosi voted for NAFTA. Everyone was drinking the Kool-aid on the NAFTA vote; trade is good for everyone. Apparently is wasn't good for workers and the environment. Ooops! So much for being liberal. She's done nothing to end the war or attack Bush because she's "being pragmatic." Screw pragmatism! People are dying right now and you are an accomplice by funding the killing.

I wish I still lived in Northern California. I would even register as a Democrat to vote against her.

Tex Shelters

[Freddie Stubbs]

262. She has been reelected seven times since that NAFTA vote

It would seem that your sentiment is shared by her constituents.

[fascisthunter]

224. Hey Look Everybody ... a Principled Democrat... a Real Democrat (nt)

[stimbox]

226. It's a rare bird indeed!

Just met her today.
She's the real deal.

[lonestarnot]

235. kick

[stimbox]

236. Bounce!

:bounce:

[LeftishBrit]

263. One thing that confuses me here...

is that - the way I understand it at least - even if this candidate wins, she won't begin her term till next January. And by then, Bush and Cheney will leave office (YEAH!!!!). So won't it be too late to impeach them?

[ileus]

264. she must think he's running for a third term...how dumb is that?