Bill Maher: Why Not Impeachment?

[marmar]

Why Not Impeachment?
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-08-24 03:01. Impeachment
By Bill Maher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

So a judge has ruled that not only is Bush's warrantless wiretapping program illegal, it's also unconstitutional. And not just unconstitutional, but doubly unconstitutional; it violates both the 1st and 4th amendments. We're talking a smackdown of Judge Judy-esque proportions.

Now, I'm not really pushing the impeachment of George Bush, unless it's about lying about that fish I talked about last season. Them I'm all for it.

But if this decision stands, and this program is unlawful and unconstitutional, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies while in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order. And that means Alberto Gonzalez could be tried, convicted, and deported.

So let's just say for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court upholds this decision and says Bush broke the law and violated the Constitution. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil case, a case that had no bearing on the public as a whole. This would - unquestionably - be a greater offense.

How would you square impeaching Clinton and not impeaching Bush? Or would Bush have to sleep with this judge in Detroit?

The complete piece is at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/13976

[electropop]

1. I think the only way around this is for Cheney to take Taylor hunting,

an invitation she would likely refuse.

[marmar]

2. LOL...

Or maybe she'd pack her own birdshot, just in case.

[Roy]

19. Won't work....

Cheney only hunts with those who sign an apology commitment oath.

[Parisle]

3. Legally Speaking,...... No Contest

----- Of course Bush deserves to be impeached. The entire PNAC should be charged with subversion, as well. And just to show the rest of the world that America has truly "spit out the poison," they should receive sentences that inspire awe.

[Cosmocat]

9. But ...

America just can't handle another impeachment ...

IF there even the first bit of justice, Bush/Cheney would be impeached and allowed to be put on trial for war crimes ... Every stinking PNAC clown would be tried for treason, and every freakin media whore who backed this crew would be deported ...

And, that would not even BEGIN to make up for it ...

[EFerrari]

4. "Alberto Gonzalez could be tried, convicted, and deported."

While I agree with the sentiment, where should we "deport" Gonzalez to, Bill? He's from Texas. Did Texas leave the union?

Geezus.

[Tyler Durden]

8. Texas is in the USA???

I was marooned there for 10 years, and I saw "the Stars and Bars" more than I saw "the Stars and Stipes."

I'll settle for Gonzales being deported to Texas.

[EFerrari]

10. You have a point there. But, there are so many of Junior's cronies

in the national capitol, it's as if we've all become a colony of Houston. lol

[progressoid]

16. Umm...that was sarcasm me thinks.

[EFerrari]

18. You may be right. One would hope. ; -)

[sofa king]

20. Well then, let's deport Texas.

I'm just kidding! And so was Bill, for that matter.

[EFerrari]

25. Okay, so we won't deport Bill to TX.

lol

[oc2002]

5. Bill is entertaining...but still just a self absorbed whore.

It has always been more about making noise and attention than actual support of a point of view. I saw him live perfomance in Washington DC awhile back, and he is very enertaining, witty and funny.

I like Bill, but lets not confuse him with someone of actual importance.

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. He is important because

he is a voice for progressive thought. We have precious few of those nowadays (especially on a large stage) and we should APPLAUD each voice that speaks out for the truth.

[oc2002]

11. yes, but he is not a serious voice for progressives, and considers

himself an independent, not liberal.

He is a comedian, and a good one.

[EFerrari]

12. Bill isn't all that progressive. He's more Libertarian than anything.

I can do without his personals quirks but he does moderate a good discussion.

[quiet.american]

13. I wouldn't really call him a voice for progressive thought

Not in the vein of, say, George Clooney or Tim Robbins. I attended a live taping of his, I think it was in 2002, where suffice it to say, quite a portion of his material was not progressive, especially when it came to women!

But kudos to his comments quoted in this thread.

[Laurab]

17. I agree with you - he is a voice and he has guts

I don't always agree with him, but I do more often than not. He says things that not many other people "on a large stage" would touch, and I applaud him. I remember when he made the fish comment - something along the lines of "ok, if he can't get impeached for breaking the law over and over, lying about a fish should do it". He lied, a fish died.

He also gives a platform to progressive candidates, and makes republicans look like the idiots they are, a LOT. I've missed his show, and I'm glad it will be back tomorrow.

[badgerpup]

21. Remember his smackdown of Bush last year re: Katrina?

"George Bush, you are a disaster that walks like a man."

:applause: :patriot:

Think that oughta get some replay time, maybe???

[jhrobbins]

24. Maybe so, but he likes Ann Coulter and thats enough for me...

to turn my stomach. I like him, but I just can't see it. Maybe he just wats to f..... her. Yech!
:puke:

[Selatius]

22. He's only progressive on social issues, not necessarily economic issues

Right-libertarians would agree with liberals on a whole host of social issues, but they're in different worlds if we're talking about economic issues.

[datasuspect]

28. i thought he was a self-professed "libertarian?"

[midnight]

6. Bill Ma her needs to ask this of the Republican congress.

He needs to ask, How would you square impeaching Clinton and not Bush?

[Raffi Ella]

23. THE COUNTRY needs to ask the Republican Congress

WHY!?Why aren't you doing your job and investigating the illegal actions of the President.


I don't think even think if the Dems win back control of the house and or Senate anything will happen.Why would it???A judge just ruled that he is breaking the law-NOTHING happened!

America = Twilight Zone.

[rman]

14. Lest we forget, the Senate found Clinton not guilty

of impeachable offenses. If impeachment is about removal from office (which it is), then Clinton ended up not being impeached.

Of course there is every ground for impeachment of Bush and removal of many of his secretaries and aides, but it's questionable if both Congress and Senate would pass it.

[oc2002]

15. Impeachin the chimp is about as likely as monkey flying out of my butt.

That is why it is a moot point, yes its entertainment, its funny, its treason, and the chimp deserves it. But unless the dems control both senate and house, its a moot point!

it does however make a great punchline.

[Buns_of_Fire]

26. Actually, Clinton WAS impeached.

The process is in two parts -- impeachment (which the House did) is more like an indictment. Then comes the trial -- in the Senate -- where the vote is either to remove (convict) or not remove (acquit).

Perhaps a small point, but often confused.

[rman]

27. Thanks for the clarification. nt