Simple question: has this administration committed serious crimes?

[Zhade]

Forget strategy. Forget 2008. I just want to know this:

Do people who argue against impeachment proceedings at this point not realize the breadth and scope of the administration's crimes, both domestic and foreign?

Allowing 9/11 to happen as a causus beli, at best? Illegal wars? Torture? Spying on American citizens? Paying for propaganda to air as news (I'm not talking about the MSM, I mean literally, as in the case of Medicare)? Rigging vote recounts, ignoring or reversing passed laws through signing statements and generally trashing the Constitution, this country and the Middle East - do these not register as serious enough crimes to those who argue for more dry powder and nebulous "when we get the White House" plans?

If any one of these crimes were committed against you by an average criminal, would you let it go, or not rest until they were brought to justice? If the latter, why do you argue in favor of allowing criminals to go free by not grabbing the chance to pursue justice?

In your view, has this administration engaged in significant law-breaking?

[Zhade]

1. It's okay to elaborate if you wish.

:)

[DCKit]

3. Nah, you pretty much got it covered.

Now it's up to Congress to uncover what we already know.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Bush and his administration have run a criminal enterprise.

[H2O Man]

4. Yes.

In fact, this administration has committed more serious crimes than any previous administration.

[Zhade]

10. So...what gives with people arguing against holding them accountable?

I mean, maybe I'm crazy, but massive lawbreaking that causes hundreds of thousands to die/suffer in a myriad of ways sure seems more urgent (to me, at any rate) than how Obama dissed Hillary, or how holding off on stopping the war can be spun as trying to stop the war.

Like I said, maybe I'm nuts... but when the house is on fire, do most reasonable people worry about redecorating?

Why do people actively argue AGAINST taking legal action against people who are clearly breaking laws?

[TahitiNut]

33. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes.

[indepat]

5. Almost every endeavor is either law-breaking, unconstitutional, an affront to the

rule of law, immoral, unjust, inhumane, in violation of our founding doctrines, fiscally insane, or some combination thereof.

[baldguy]

6. What actions have they taken which were NOT crimes?

[bluerum]

7. Simple answer - yes. eom

[JTG of the PRB]

8. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

But I only voted "yes" because there was nothing stronger. Personally, I would have liked an option that read, "Yes, oh sweet Jesus, yes! Guilty as sin!"

But it's not my thread. So "Yes" will have to suffice!

[porphyrian]

9. Man, I hope no one thinks they haven't. - n/t

[Zhade]

11. I wonder what's scarier - honest decent liberals thinking that...

...or them knowing, and arguing against accountability anyway, in favor of worrying about (e.g.) 2008.

[DCKit]

14. Those who aren't running in 2008 and those who are and know their seats are secure

are free to concentrate on hearings. As they used to say on the X-Files, the truth is out there.

[porphyrian]

20. I can pity the former, but the latter are whores whose lies are disease.

And they spread it knowingly. That's utterly reprehensible.

[dweller]

12. they were put in office with the first ones

and nothing seems to stop them.

dp

[Warren DeMontague]

13. That depends on whether your definition of "serious crimes" starts and stops at blowjobs. nt

[Selatius]

15. Have Rumsfeld land on German soil and see what happens to him. There's your answer.

There's a German court case naming him and others accusing him of war crimes in Iraq. They want him to stand trial.

[nam78_two]

16. 2 votes for "No"?

I am assuming your hands slipped :eyes:

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Wow. 2 No votes?

Wow, kinda interesting way to get a little count of passing...uh, you know...tr...uh, Limbaugh fans.

[54anickel]

22. One was Dick, the other was Bush. I do believe that's their defense strategy

They've done nothing "illegal" because of this or that loophole or one of the multitude of signing statements. Unethical or immoral - yes, but not technically illegal in their view. That's what Repugs mean when they refer to "rule of law". :eyes:

[femmocrat]

18. What I want to know is why do they keep on getting away with it?

One scandal after another... it's hard to keep track of them all anymore. I thought for sure Fitz was going to "get them".... but they just keep rollin' along. Why is that?

[PDJane]

24. They've got a great old boy's system behind them,

And they've had lots of practice.

Bush family has been doing this shit for generations.

[Zhade]

25. Since at least the Civil War, if not earlier.

NT!

[Ian David]

19. It isn't serious until it involves The Presidential Penis.

We need to investigate the whole Jeff Gannon and Victor Ashe thing.

[stillcool]

21. too many to count....

and how could these crimes have been done without the aid of the entire federal government apparatus?

[NNN0LHI]

23. Where is the "Yes, the administration has committed goddamned serious crimes?" choice? n/t

[MoonRiver]

26. What have they done that isn't a crime?

:shrug:

[MN ChimpH8R]

27. It is probably impossible to list

the crimes for which the Bush Crime Family is responsible for in the last six plus years. The number is probably beyond counting.

[Frustratedlady]

28. Boggles your mind, doesn't it?

I keep wondering if the blogs are the only ones who are looking at the whole picture, or are we totally off base? It's like waking up from a nightmare, not knowing how it turned out, but retaining that fearful, sick feeling that something bad is happening and no one is there to help.

We are right, aren't we?

[tom_paine]

29. Literally DOZENS of felonies openly performed.

They have committed HIGH CRIMES and perhaps, when one adds up all of the many felonies and unConstitutional usurpations, High Treason.

Loyal Bushies most definitely hate America, hate it's freedom. And they re churning out Lil' Eichmanns as fast as Regent & Liberty U.'s can program them.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Did four people just wake up from a prolonged coma?

Could one of them please explain 'no'?

[MUAD_DIB]

31. 5 Votes for no!!?? Okay, who are the fucking trolls

that want to debate why *Co is innocent as a little lamb?

I'm ready, lil conservarats.

[WinkyDink]

32. I think this is a given. No more if, ands, or buts.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. We have different idea here about impeachment

For me, it has been a given for a long time that Bush and his aides have committed impeachable offenses. To be exact, I began taking the position that he had when the first missiles were fired over Baghdad in what seemed to me to be a colonial war with no real justification. It was also in the first hours of the invasion that I realized the extent of Bush's lies; not only did Saddam not have WMDs in the quantities claimed by the Bush regime, he had none at all. If he had them, he would have used them just as the invasion started, when invading forces were massed in Kuwait., making one big, fat target. It would have been, to use the cliche, just like shooting fish in a barrel. Ironically, it would have been a perfectly legal example of a pre-emptive strike.

But I digress.

There are many other matters for which the regime can be ousted. Bush specifically now appears to have had a role in the firing of eight US Attorneys for the purpose of politicizing the justice department, subverting the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. Bush may have committed no crime in the sense of violating an overt act of Congress, but explicitly or implicitly directing US Attorneys to go after office holders of one political party, even on trumped up charges, and lay off the other is not something anybody wants any president doing.

When Mr. Gonzales sits down under oath next week and says he only fired US Attorneys at the direction of Mr. Bush, he will be implicating Mr. Bush in high crimes and misdemeanors.

As for Mr. Cheney, we have evidence from the trial of Scooter Libby that he was directing the smear campaign against Mr. Wilson which resulted in the blowing of a CIA counterproliferations officer's cover. I can say that I held an MI MOS in the US Army from 1976 through 1979; part of my job was to handle classified information and part of my training was to learn the proper way to handle it and what consequences there were for not handling it properly. Had I handled classified information with the same reckless abandon that Mr. Cheney and members of the OVP handled the fact of Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA, which was classified, I could have faced a court martial. Mr. Cheney should at the very least face impeachment for his role in the matter. So should Mr. Bush, who declassified parts of the NIE in a highly irregular way to give Cheney and his crew legal cover to leak it; in effect, Bush declassified secrets but that was a secret to all but three individuals: Bush, Cheney and Libby.

Nailing a couple of war criminals for acts like that may be a little like nailing Al Capone for income tax evasion. but it did the trick. Capone, who was fatally ill with syphilis, was put in Alcatraz for the rest of his life. It stopped him from killing again. Impeaching Bush and Cheney over matters that seem almost trivial compared to starting a war that has killed hundreds of thousands for reasons based on facts that were either distorted, misrepresented or fabricated may not be wholly satisfying, but it will stop them from killing again.

I have no doubt that high crimes and misdemeanors were committed and the evidence is there. It won't be hard work for congressional staffers to find it.

While I would like to see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney removed from power as soon as possible, I will leave it to members of the Democratic majority to determine the time. Approximately a third of Senate Republicans will need to be convinced to vote guilty, even if it means making Nancy Pelosi president.

Impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney is necessary for American public safety. They have stretched our Army and Navy thin and to the breaking point. If the United States had a legitimate and urgent reason to go to war tomorrow, would the military be able to answer the call? They have neglected public works such as levees that make natural disasters that much worse. They have rotted the bureaus of government that do the people's business with corruption and cronyism. All this, and they listen to our phone conversations and do away with the writ of Habeas Corpus, too.

In short, I am for impeaching Bush and Cheney for any reason and at any time that will assure that a majority of the House will vote to convict and two-thirds of the Senate will vote to convict. As long as there gone, that is all that matters.

That is my idea of impeachment. Does any one have a better one?

[Zhade]

35. That's all that matters?

I wonder - considering the very real damage the Dems' failure to hold both Reagan and Poppy Bush accountable for THEIR crimes caused, I don't and can't agree.

[Disturbed]

36. The evidence of the Busholini Admin. crimes are obvious.

The documentation is available. Congress is afraid to move forth.

[Zhade]

37. Indeed.

I cannot fathom this "let's let them get away with crimes AGAIN" mentality.