Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Charley Rangel said today on Sean Hannity's show bush should not be impe.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:14 PM
Original message
Charley Rangel said today on Sean Hannity's show bush should not be impe.
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 06:15 PM by coldiggs
ached. Too bad if we cant get him on board with this then the whole thing is for not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think Bush should be impeached either
I think he should be arrested. What he has done in the NSA spying incident alone is illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. you werent paying attention in goverment class. he would have to be impeac
hed to be arrested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I cant spell but I know this for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. show me the law
don't take Hannity's word for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Im not. Hannity asked Ragel if bush should be impeached and he said no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. well then
Rangel and I differ on that point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. ya me to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Well it's not supposed to distract from his official duties
but since he doesn't seem to take those seriously or even really perform them, I don't see how the Constitution can be said to apply. He has certainly breached his oath to serve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree, he shouldn't be impeached
he should be fucking arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced

fuck this concept of "you broke the law, and we'll punish you by giving you early retirement"

if I robbed a bank I'd lose my job AND my freedom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. sorry i should not of called you a moron. But under US law he would first
have to be impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. which law is this?
it's news to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Its in article two of the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Read your constitution. He can only be removed
by impeachment. After removed, he can then be tried for his crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. well that sucks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. ya it does and if Rangel wont support it there is now way in hell 2/3 of t
he congress would
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. This is the funniest conversation on DU today
I couldn't believe what I was reading, moron! :0)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I agree, heh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. But remember, if convicted by the Senate, jeopardy is attached.
And the only punishment that can be associated with impeachment is removal from office and the prohibition on holding further public office in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. Well, since Rangel sits in the House, not the Senate, he's not the
roadblock.

Not worrying about the House when he can't even get the Senate in gear on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coldiggs Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. charges have to be brought by the house
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I know that. Still, proportionately, Rangel doesn't have the clout.
What can I say? I like Rangel, but he's not in a leadership position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. you have it backwards... the house has to initiate this process.
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 07:14 PM by radio4progressives
then it moves forward from there..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I know that. Still, proportionately, Rangel doesn't have the clout.
I like Rangel...but he's not in the Leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. The down side to impeachment
Is that you end up with President Dick Cheney. And then Cheney gets to appoint a new vice president. Can you imagine what kind of massive asshole Cheney would pick as VP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. There couldn't be a more massive asshole as VP then himself,
could there? That is hard to imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. The Veep doesn't have to go through the same process
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 07:18 PM by radio4progressives
The Veep can be indicted and forced to resign, remember Nixon's veep, Spiro Agnew that's how we got rid of that bastard.

and that happened before the Water Gate hearings. Remember Nixon was never impeached because he was advised to resign just before impeachment proceedings moved forward.

The joint house/senate hearings on the domestic spying is the begining of the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. We got lucky with Agnew. His indictment was on criminal charges
of tax evasion.

To remove a Vice President in the absence of similar charges, he's also got to be impeached.

"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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC