Impeachment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Chaingang -> Impeachment (12/9/2006 6:18:46 AM)

Pick your own favorite source for the news:
http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&q=impeachment

I like this one:
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0113.html

---

Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have been introduced. It seems like there is no real support for such impeachment as of yet, but I find it interesting nonetheless. ..




Level -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 6:55:03 AM)

Yes, they've been introduced by McKinney, who is as big a fool as they come.




Chaingang -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 7:19:06 AM)

Why should this be about McKinney? She is irrelevant to this issue.




Level -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 7:26:41 AM)

I will say this: she should have been allowed to read her statement on the floor.




LTRsubNW -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 10:33:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Yes, they've been introduced by McKinney, who is as big a fool as they come.


Personally, as a lifelong Republican, I would be thrilled to see Bush somehow legally accountable for his incredible profundity of errors while he's been in office, nevertheless, this woman, McKinney is the same woman who when approached by police in DC regards some infraction, later claimed racial bias was the reason she was abused by the police and made a huge stink about it instead of saying "ooops...I broke the law...I'm really sorry, white or black, I need to follow the law, moreso solely because I represent the law...my apologies...won't happen again".

But she didn't.  For lack of a better way of saying it...she made a federal case out of it.

I can't imagine a worse person to have brought this subject up in Congress than her...and I'm certain Pelossi (sp?) among others feels similarly. 




luckydog1 -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 11:25:19 AM)

Pelosi is going to have a hell of time trying to satisfy all the wings of her coalition.  But she won by promising the moon to every left/progressive group in existance.  Not her specifically but Air America, ect.  Lots of  her voters will agree very much with McKinney, and they tend to be very loud.  Nor are they know for calm reflection.  Pelosi will want to stay centrist and just focus on a few things, but the base has years of pent up desires.  It will certainly be an interesting 2 years.




SusanofO -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 1:22:21 PM)

I think the Bush adminsitration deserves to have lots of committees looking into how they all could have acted this stupidly for as long as they did (not to mention all of the shenanigans as far the financial mis-management of tax-payer funds that went on during infrastructure reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina and in Iraq).

But impeachment? Tempting, but probably not gonna happen (I think. For one thing, doesn't it take a long time for the government to make thing like this happen? He only has a couple years left in office. I am serious). Still, it may look like it's going to happen. But - actually happen? I think not. If they (Republicans)can drag Bill Clinton through the same, for a BJ with an intern (which wasn't "admirable", maybe, but hardly on the same scale of offensiveness in my thinking) I can't say they aren't getting "payback" here.

But I hope he and some of his top advisers get a good scare. And especially I hope Cheney does (although I tend to think Cheny is a sociopath, and won't care anyway). Sometimes, I can almost feel sorry for Bush (because I do think he is somewhat incompetent and not "evil." But - enough is enough. And there's certainly been "enough" (mismanagement) (my  opinion).

- Susan




Chaingang -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 2:48:00 PM)

Um...yeah...

Just keep in mind that Americans (invaders) and also Iraqis (protecting their homeland just as we would) are still dying thanks to these high levels of incompetence. There's got to be a tipping point at which incompetence becomes criminally negligent murder. The cost for semi...sort...kinda...control of that Iraqi oil has been very high and still is.

Americans will impeach for a blow job, but not for the 1000s of deaths and and injuries.

Animals are more civilized than that.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 2:54:56 PM)

I agree, we need more calm reflection.  Like healthcare reform?  Let's not be so hasty.  Campaign finance reform?  Let's take some time to think the issue through.  Formulating a coherent energy policy?  No, let's table that; we need to reflect a while longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Lots of  her voters will agree very much with McKinney, and they tend to be very loud.  Nor are they know for calm reflection.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 2:56:42 PM)

By the way, it's a little misleading to say that the Iraqis are simply protecting their homeland.  Which Iraqis are you talking about?  The ones sponsored by Iran?  The ones blowing up their fellow citizens?  The situation is a lot more complex than you're making it out to be; in fact, not appreciating the complexity is one of the main reasons why we've fucked this up as royally as we have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Just keep in mind that Americans (invaders) and also Iraqis (protecting their homeland just as we would) are still dying thanks to these high levels of incompetence.




popeye1250 -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 3:01:24 PM)

I think they'd have better luch impeaching Bush for what he hasn't done rather than what he has done.
Not closing that Mexican border and not enforcing our immigration laws for one.




Chaingang -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 3:14:35 PM)

Lordandmaster:

If they live there, it's their home. What's complicated about it?





LTRsubNW -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 3:32:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I think they'd have better luch impeaching Bush for what he hasn't done rather than what he has done.
Not closing that Mexican border and not enforcing our immigration laws for one.


You argued in another post that the whole "incorporating Mexico and Canada as a whole" was a horrid idea.  I've long debated that if Mexico and Canada were part of the whole of North America...as if a stepping stone to a 51st and 52nd state (of course, it would be much more than that), it would be a huge effort into creating a super state...not at all like some fiction novel with unending awful encumberances...rather...an opportunity to take this North American continent into something that it's never been.  That it could have been.

To put it bluntly and of course, econonimically (and I apologize Popeye for not responding to your earlier abasement as to the North American congealement, North and South...I wanted to...but time wouldn't allow), Canada has oil sands...and of course we in the U.S. have enough coal to last at least 500 years (even without any oil from Saudi Arabia), of course, Mexico has cheap land and labor and naturally, if we conscripted their land, we'd be, with some limitations, forced to follow our own laws as to labor...and the net result would be a land grab (which would of course hurt some...as is always the case with commerce...but laws and the public domain would ensure that the bulk of our appeasement would follow law).

If you ask Mexicans "what could better stabilize our world?"...they would tell you..."allow us to be the 51st state".

Canada will be a much harder fight, only because of indifference.

If you wonder whether we've lost our influence (and yes, i'd agree, Bush was the predominant player), question this....it's no longer pertinent whether or not we've lost that influence...but whether or not we can regain it.

Whether or not you debate if we deserve our influence is really beside the point.  What really matters is...for those of us alive today....can we hold on to it without debasing the rest of the world?

I for one think that in my lifetime, we'll find leaders who will be able to balance the things that we find valuable, while holding dear the things that the rest of the world holds dear as well.

And in the end, strength does matter.  Canada is nothing by itself.  Mexico is holding on by a thread.

And 55% of their population is mowing our lawns.

Let's bring them in.  Let's welcome them. 

They've already been the 51st state for the last 20 years anyway.




LTRsubNW -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 4:20:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

Um...yeah...

Just keep in mind that Americans (invaders) and also Iraqis (protecting their homeland just as we would) are still dying thanks to these high levels of incompetence. There's got to be a tipping point at which incompetence becomes criminally negligent murder. The cost for semi...sort...kinda...control of that Iraqi oil has been very high and still is.

Americans will impeach for a blow job, but not for the 1000s of deaths and and injuries.

Animals are more civilized than that.


Let's keep things in perspective.  There's no question, this was not our conflict.  There's further no question that above all, this was not where we belonged.

Barring that, we have concerns in the Middle East.  Whether we should be there is beside the point.

We are...and we remain.

No one can question whether this was a fallacy.  But we're there.

I'll never understand the question that seems to be on every Congressmans lips...."when will they grab the reigns?"

Why did we put them in the position to do so?  What right did we have?

I don't profess to know the intricacies of war, let alone multinational politics, or the inside deals that created this newsfront, but I do know this....you and I individually aren't smart enough to know the individual politics...but we are smart enough to know this whole fucking thing ain't right.

And the sooner we give these people the chance to become all that we are demanding that they be....a nation that demands that they have a voice in their own future...the better off we...and the better off the world...and the better off the Middle East...is (are).






Lordandmaster -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 4:26:11 PM)

Read this if you don't think it's complicated:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19720

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

What's complicated about it?




Chaingang -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 4:36:38 PM)

That's all bullshit. First you complain about indecision and then present us with an article indicating that there is no clear or good solution to the war - ergo, the indecision solution. Bullshit. The best time to stop hurting other people in another country is right the fuck now.

We just leave - real simple like.

I'm a pragmatist. If all options lead to endless shit-storms, then let's choose the easiest and cheapest solution. I really don't give a fuck about other stuff. And BTW, while I have some sympathy for the Iraqis, I ultimately care far more about Americans. So my up and leave solution saves more American lives also. By leaving, we also save more Iraqi lives. Win-win.

Ain't life grand?




farglebargle -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 4:40:28 PM)

Fuck Impeachment.

INDICT!

Ex. Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega did a model, one count indictment.

The whole thing is here: http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=143205 , but here's the beginning of it...




The Indictment
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Assistant United States Attorney: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. We're here today in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. In addition to President Bush, the defendants are Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who's now the Secretary of State, of course -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

It's a one-count proposed indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. I'll explain the law that applies to the case this afternoon, but I'm going to hand out the indictment now, so you'll have some context for that explanation. Take as long as you need to read it, and then feel free to take your lunch break, but please leave your copy of the indictment with the foreperson. We'll meet back at one o'clock.

***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal No. Plaintiff, ) ) Conspiracy to Defraud v. ) the United States ) GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 18 U.S.C. Section 371 RICHARD B. CHENEY, ) CONDOLEEZZA RICE, ) DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and ) COLIN POWELL, ) Defendants )

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

Introductory Allegations

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the first branch of government is the Legislative Branch ("Congress"). Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Congress has certain powers and obligations regarding oversight of foreign affairs, including the powers to: (1) declare war; (2) raise and support the armed forces; and (3) tax and spend for the common good.

2. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. The Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

3. Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH ("BUSH") has been employed as President of the United States since January 20, 2001. On that day, BUSH took a constitutionally mandated oath to faithfully execute the Office of President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. BUSH is also constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

4. As Chief Executive, BUSH exercised authority, direction, and control over the entire Executive Branch, which includes the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of State, Defense, and others, and the National Security Council.

5. Defendant RICHARD B. CHENEY ("CHENEY") has been employed as Vice President of the United States since January 20, 2001.

6. Defendant CONDOLEEZZA RICE ("RICE") was employed as the National Security Adviser from January 2001 to January 2005, when she became Secretary of State, a position she holds as of the date of this indictment. As National Security Adviser, RICE exercised direction, control, and authority over the National Security Council, which coordinates various national security and foreign policy agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State.

7. Defendant DONALD M. RUMSFELD ("RUMSFELD") has been employed as Secretary of Defense since January 2001.

8. Defendant COLIN M. POWELL ("POWELL") was employed as Secretary of State from January 2001 through January of 2005.

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,

GEORGE W. BUSH,
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE,
DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and
COLIN M. POWELL,

and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.





LTRsubNW -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 4:55:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

That's all bullshit. First you complain about indecision and then present us with an article indicating that there is no clear or good solution to the war - ergo, the indecision solution. Bullshit. The best time to stop hurting other people in another country is right the fuck now.

We just leave - real simple like.

I'm a pragmatist. If all options lead to endless shit-storms, then let's choose the easiest and cheapest solution. I really don't give a fuck about other stuff. And BTW, while I have some sympathy for the Iraqis, I ultimately care far more about Americans. So my up and leave solution saves more American lives also. By leaving, we also save more Iraqi lives. Win-win.

Ain't life grand?


As bad as it is, as wrong as we were...

It's just not that simple.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 5:06:07 PM)

I've been saying that for about two years now, Chaingang.

You're so filled with rage and make such rapid cocksure judgments that you don't even realize what you're saying half the time.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the article I posted.  Why should we read your stuff if you don't read anyone else's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

We just leave - real simple like.




servantforuse -> RE: Impeachment (12/9/2006 5:14:43 PM)

If the Democrats try to impeach Bush, they will be out of power so fast they won't know what hit em. You liberals are never happy. You got control of the congress, just go to work and do the job you thought the right wasn't doing. I'm sick of the whineing......




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02