39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

I like to look at the American Revolution.

If the House pushed impeachment then you will see civil war in the
US. Too many Bush supporters are fed up with the cry babies of the
left. All the left understands is violence, look at the way that they
are scared to death of the Muslims....


No way, Jose. Americans only bitch and moan. If they were inclined to
Civil War it would be happening now over illegal immigration and how the
left (and Bush) tell us we are racists because we can no longer stand
this invasion by Mexico.

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.

Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.

sechumlib wrote:
On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.


Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.

You're right, of course. What is wrong is the system is inappropriate
for today's United States. The people want the ability to recall the
president.

Had the people had that power, both Clinton and Bush would have been
removed from office.

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
...

Yes. I find it amazing that so many "law and order" conservative thing
that Scooter Libby was persecuted and that the millions spent trying to
find something, anything, to impeach Bill Clinton was money and time well
spent.

Matthew

I am a law and order conservative (that does not mean I am a Republican,
btw) who thinks that both cases were a waste of money. Libby, however, did
get convicted and was, at the very best, very stupid, and he got what he
deserved. President Clinton got what he deserved as well. As you say, the
Senate chose not to convict him, but that has little to do with whether he
was guilty. Sometimes the best thing for the country with respect to
dealing with the President is not to treat him the way everyone else is
treated in the courts. This is exactly why we have impeachment.

Leonard

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:17:10 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:11:00 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote (in article
om):

Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:

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.�
"high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).

I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury - a felony in
every court in the country.

The only offenses specifically called out in the Constitution are, as
stated above:

Treason -- Clearly defined in the Constitution
Bribery -- Selling the power of the president

Note: Getting caught in a perjury trap is not specified.

All other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not defined.

Irrelevant. The law of the land defines those. If a president commits a
felony, he CAN be impeached for it, and whether or not he is actually
impeached is, of course, up to Congress. You are right in that its not an
automatic thing.

In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

Sparrow wrote:
Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.

He's almost certainly get to go along for the ride. He's in this stuff
deeper than Bush is.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 00:35:46 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
(in article om):

Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.

Wikipedia has a nice list of potential charges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...Bush#Rationale
s_for_impeachment

The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:

1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).

As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.

If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
according to whatever standard Congress wants.

[snip]



Then why aren't the Democrats instituting impeachment proceedings? Could it
be that they feel that having Chaney as Pres would be out of the frying pan
and into the fire?

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 03:32:07 -0700, Tim Adams wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
(in article om):

Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law. You can't impeach a
president because you disagree with his policies. What we need in this
country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence" to
a
sitting administration like they do in Great Britain. Then, the president
doesn't need to be guilty of a crime, he just needs to not please the
citizenry with his policies.

The problem with that is every other month there would be an election since
no
president seem to last any longer then that before some vocal group disagree
with their policies.



It seems to work in Great Britain. In England (I don't pretend to understand
the particulars) it seems that there must be a set of particulars that must
occur before a recall is issued. It would have to be similar here. IOW, some
safeguards would need to be in place to avoid the type of capricious recalls
that you suggest.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.

Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has no
right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.