Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 7/18/2008 8:49:05 PM EST
There will be a hearing related to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Article of Impeachment against George Bush in the House Judiciary Committee. That was assured by a vote of 238 to 180 on Tuesday.

But, according to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s “Countdown” last night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has mandated that questioning in the hearing be relegated to Bush’s abuses of power, not his criminal wrongdoing.

“There’s never been one [hearing] that accumulated all the things that constitute an imperial presidency,” said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, according to CQ Politics. He indicated topics covered in the hearing would include the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the betrayal of CIA agent Valerie Plame and Bush’s alleged lying to Congress about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Kucinich’s single Article of Impeachment only deals with Bush’s lies to Congress.

There were no Democratic votes against holding the hearing. While 180 Republicans voted to follow their Dear Leader lock-step over the cliff, 10 Republicans abstained and nine Republican members of Congress voted with the Democrats:

Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.)
Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.)
Rep. Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Rep. Tim Murphy (Penn.)
Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)
Rep. Dave Reichert (Wash.)
Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.)
Rep. Mike Turner (Ohio)

Kucinich promises a surprise witness against Bush. Also from CQ Politics: “An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.”
Sp
Link Posted: 7/18/2008 9:32:57 PM EST

: “An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.”
Sp


So, we are going to have government officials of foreign nations testify in impeachment hearings against our own elected officials? Why does this not sound like a good idea.

Link Posted: 7/19/2008 12:58:19 AM EST
Kucinich --->
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 2:57:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By sharkman6:

: “An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.”
Sp


So, we are going to have government officials of foreign nations testify in impeachment hearings against our own elected officials? Why does this not sound like a good idea.



Being an insanely bad idea is a goog reason enough in itself for Democrats to do anything!
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 7:44:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2008 7:46:28 AM EST by scrum]
Reichert didn't support Kookinich. From his blog:

"On a list of issues that Congress should be spending tax-payer funded time on, Mr. Kucinich’s resolution to impeach the President is not one of them.

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues.

Precious time is wasted voting on an impeachment resolution, when we should be addressing record-high energy prices, strengthening the economy and the housing market, funding our veterans and our troops, and passing free trade agreements that have the potential to spur our economy. Hardworking Americans are concerned about their family budgets and the future of our country.

Playing political games at the expense of every citizen in this country is shameful. I cast my vote not to bait the Democrats into a debate, nor to endorse consideration in the Judiciary Committee. I voted against the Democratic attempt to impeach the President, and also against the Republican attempt to force a debate instead of focusing attention on issues affecting every American."



Link Posted: 7/19/2008 9:06:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 9:09:01 AM EST
as the world turns, what a soap opera
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 11:51:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/19/2008 5:06:36 PM EST by LGK]
If you read conservative news, the Republicans voted with the Democrats to embrass them in the coming election. The Democrats leaderships did what they could to stop Kucinich's silliness. They did push very hard to stop it but what can you do when you got Republicans forcing the issue.

The impeachment against George Bush is a train wrack for the Democrat party.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 3:48:55 PM EST
Why are they even bothering with this...Its just a waste of time & money...he's out in a few months anyway...O wait,wasting time & money...democrats...i just answered my own question
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 7:22:06 PM EST
Ron Paul voting with the demoncrats??? What a shock sorry loser


223SAINT
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:26:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By 223SAINT:
Ron Paul voting with the demoncrats??? What a shock sorry loser


223SAINT


Hogwash. If you look at his record, you'll see that he habitually votes in favor of the Constitution. Paul's problem with Bush and Iraq: only Congress can declare war.

I'm not for impeachment, but Bush certainly overstepped his bounds. He's the reason we have a Dem Congress, and he's done more to help Obama than most oif the DNC. Every long-term Republican should be disgusted with him.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 7:22:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By brianf31:

Originally Posted By 223SAINT:
Ron Paul voting with the demoncrats??? What a shock sorry loser


223SAINT


Hogwash. If you look at his record, you'll see that he habitually votes in favor of the Constitution. Paul's problem with Bush and Iraq: only Congress can declare war.

I'm not for impeachment, but Bush certainly overstepped his bounds. He's the reason we have a Dem Congress, and he's done more to help Obama than most oif the DNC. Every long-term Republican should be disgusted with him.


Guess you have never heard of that little thing called the War Powers Act.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 7:46:23 AM EST
Good.

Between the heavy handed abuse of procedures the Dems have used again and again against the minority Republicans and now impeachment perhaps they'll push this country into a position where we'll finally be able to get rid of these commie liberals once and forall.

The Republicans have already walked out once from the Congress.

The Democrats are pushing this country right toward a civil war. They really are.

Link Posted: 7/20/2008 9:23:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By brianf31:

Originally Posted By 223SAINT:
Ron Paul voting with the demoncrats??? What a shock sorry loser


223SAINT


Hogwash. If you look at his record, you'll see that he habitually votes in favor of the Constitution. Paul's problem with Bush and Iraq: only Congress can declare war.

I'm not for impeachment, but Bush certainly overstepped his bounds. He's the reason we have a Dem Congress, and he's done more to help Obama than most oif the DNC. Every long-term Republican should be disgusted with him.


Ron Paul wouldn't recognize the constitution if someone shoved it up his ass and pulled it out one of his ears.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 4:25:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By LGK:
If you read conservative news, the Republicans voted with the Democrats to embrass them in the coming election. The Democrats leaderships did what they could to stop Kucinich's silliness. They did push very hard to stop it but what can you do when you got Republicans forcing the issue.

The impeachment against George Bush is a train wrack for the Democrat party.


"Operation Chaos" opens up a second front!
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:24:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By rowdeyredman:
There will be a hearing related to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Article of Impeachment against George Bush in the House Judiciary Committee. That was assured by a vote of 238 to 180 on Tuesday.

But, according to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s “Countdown” last night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has mandated that questioning in the hearing be relegated to Bush’s abuses of power, not his criminal wrongdoing.

“There’s never been one [hearing] that accumulated all the things that constitute an imperial presidency,” said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, according to CQ Politics. He indicated topics covered in the hearing would include the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the betrayal of CIA agent Valerie Plame and Bush’s alleged lying to Congress about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Kucinich’s single Article of Impeachment only deals with Bush’s lies to Congress.

There were no Democratic votes against holding the hearing. While 180 Republicans voted to follow their Dear Leader lock-step over the cliff, 10 Republicans abstained and nine Republican members of Congress voted with the Democrats:

Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.)
Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.)
Rep. Don Manzullo (Ill.)
Rep. Tim Murphy (Penn.)
Rep. Ron Paul (Texas)
Rep. Dave Reichert (Wash.)
Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.)
Rep. Mike Turner (Ohio)

Kucinich promises a surprise witness against Bush. Also from CQ Politics: “An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.”
Sp


Quoted for posterity...
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:26:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jammer1:

Originally Posted By brianf31:

Originally Posted By 223SAINT:
Ron Paul voting with the demoncrats??? What a shock sorry loser


223SAINT


Hogwash. If you look at his record, you'll see that he habitually votes in favor of the Constitution. Paul's problem with Bush and Iraq: only Congress can declare war.

I'm not for impeachment, but Bush certainly overstepped his bounds. He's the reason we have a Dem Congress, and he's done more to help Obama than most oif the DNC. Every long-term Republican should be disgusted with him.


Guess you have never heard of that little thing called the War Powers Act.


Here's a clue:

The WPA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Congress has NO Constitutional power to regulate the President's power as Commander in Chief beyond funding or not funding the military...

There is also NO Constitutional justification for REQUIRING war to be declared before the President can use said powers....
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:30:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 6:31:35 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By brianf31:
Hogwash. If you look at his record, you'll see that he habitually votes in favor of the Constitution. Paul's problem with Bush and Iraq: only Congress can declare war.


Bullshit...

Ron wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit him in the ass...

There is NO Constitutional justification for REQUIRING a declaration of war before combat is initiated...

Under the Constitution, the President can start a war any time he choses... Weather Congress issues a 'Declaration of War' or not...

While the President cannot, himself, DECLARE war, that does nothing to prevent him from starting one without a declaration

Congress is allowed only ONE recourse - to cut off funding for said war (which this Congress has not been able to do)...

Impeachment of President Bush is, in it's self, unconstitutional - the President has not committed any crimes for which he could be impeached
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:30:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:31:39 PM EST
Why am I not supprised that douchebag chris shays (from my state) voted. This is the same guy who is cosponsoring a new federal AWB. Also Ron Paul? What a dickhead he is and everyone else who is trying to impeach Bush. What ever happed to standing by your leader in war time? He's out of office in less than a year, why must these assholes continue to torture the guy.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:34:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 6:40:17 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Dave is right, there is no legal support for the WPA. It is a political issue which is why the courts have not touched it, and likely never will. Congress has purse string power, nothing else.


The WPA has never been touched because neither side has actually put it to the test... No President - including Bush, has gone to war without Congressional authorization of some sort... And no Congress has tried to hold a President to the WPA...

Both sides basically know it's unconstitutional & won't hold up in court...

The WPA being unconstitutional DOES have precedent...

When the Radical Reconstructionists were trying to get rid of President Johnson after the Civil War, they passed similar unconstitutional laws limiting the President's powers as CinC...

President Johnson blew them off, and refused to obey said unconstitutional laws... He was then impeached, but not convicted...

Later on, the laws were struck down....

President Clinton was the first President to be impeached for a constitutionally valid offense - Perjury.... Unfortunately, he too was not convicted....
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:34:52 PM EST
Morons.
Top Top