Will Republicans Help to Impeach Bush? (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The White House thinks so, and are bracing for impeachment hearings, which could be bolstered by the outcome of the Judiciary Committee hearings, which begin early in February. The key here is Arlen Specter, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. As head of the committee, Specter could have quashed any move to determine if Bush broke the law. However, he gave the hearings a thumbs up, thus enabling the committee to go ahead with the Bush investigation. If the committee does indeed determine that Bush broke the law, the next step will be for formal impeachment hearings in the House. We all know that the Democrats will vote to a man (or woman) to impeach, but are there enough votes from Republicans? The White House believes there could be. I also believe there could be. There are enough real Conservatives left in the Republican party who put America first, that impeachment is a distinct possibility. However, when it gets to the Senate for trial, Bush will prevail, as the dittoheads on both sides will gridlock. Like the Clinton impeachment, the attempt to remove Bush from office will not even get half the vote, let alone what is needed. However, like the Clinton trial, the damage will be done.

To summarize, impeachment can happen if:

1) One Republican on the Judiciary Committee determines that Bush broke the law. Of course, we know that the Democrats will stick together, but will one Republican bolt? That is the question.

2) If enough Republicans in the House vote for impeachment. The GOP doesnt have as solid majority in the House it once did. Impeachment by the House is a greater possibility than a Judiciary Committee vote against Bush. If the first hurdle is cleared, then the second hurdle will be easy.

In the end, it just might be a few Republicans who end up putting the move to impeach over the top.

Based on this article.

 

[Kandahar]

I only think he should be impeached if there's a reasonable chance that he can be removed from office. If another president is acquitted by the Senate, I worry that we might be setting a dangerous precedent to impeach any politically unpopular president.

Of course he should be held accountable if he broke the law...but realistically if it doesn't seem like he will be, there's no point in wasting time with the Senate proceedings.

 

[KCConservative]

As I said on the other six impeachment threads: Good luck and keep us posted! :lol:

 

[VoiceOfReason]

There is a ZERO percent chance Bush will be impeached. Not .01 %. ZERO.

 

[KCConservative]

There is a ZERO percent chance Bush will be impeached. Not .01 %. ZERO.

But this is their favorite thread topic. There have been many Impeach Bush threads and there will be many more. It's the DNC platform.

 

[scottyz]

Even if they were show irrefutable proof he broke the law I highly doubt the Republicans would impeach him or hold him accountable in any way. I would think the biggest concern is that Democrats might regain control of the house in '06 and make impeachment an issue.

 

[danarhea]

But this is their favorite thread topic. There have been many Impeach Bush threads and there will be many more. It's the DNC platform.

So its all the DNC's fault, this talk about impeachment? You should have read the link, then you would have known better. The source????? Drum roll please............

The source is Insight Magazine, the sister publication of the Washington Times. LOL. The article was very good, and was from a Conservative point of view.

Consider yourself biatch-slapped..........again.

Just like old times back at the other board, before you got yourself permanently banned there. :2razz:

 

[KCConservative]

So its all the DNC's fault, this talk about impeachment? You should have read the link, then you would have known better. The source????? Drum roll please............

The source is Insight Magazine, the sister publication of the Washington Times. LOL. The article was very good, and was from a Conservative point of view.

Consider yourself biatch-slapped..........again.

Just like old times back at the other board, before you got yourself permanently banned there. :2razz:

Just like Mr KidRocks yesterday when I mentioned Michael Moore's website, referencing the DNC in this case is counter-rhetorical. I'll try to speak in absolutes from now on, dana, so the sarcasm and irony don't go over your head.

And tell us, who else was banned permanently from that other board? Hmmm? :2razz:

Is he impeached yet? :rofl

 

[Stinger]

So if the Attorney General tells the president that what he is doing is legal, and the courts have ruled what he is doing is legal and the inspector generals tell him it's legal all the previous presidents have done the same and the congressional leaders have all been aware of it........................what are the grounds for impeachment?

And certainly if we impeach a president because he was tapping phone calls outside the country, from known Alqaeda contacts, that came into this country, then do you think the next one will do it?

So when an Al qaeda operative we are tracking, and monitoring his phone calls outside the US suddenly lands at JFK and OBL calls him and we go to a judge and say we need to tap that line and he says no probable cause................what do we do then?

 

[Stinger]

Even if they were show irrefutable proof he broke the law I highly doubt the Republicans would impeach him or hold him accountable in any way. I would think the biggest concern is that Democrats might regain control of the house in '06 and make impeachment an issue.

Unlike the Democrats who have been shown proof that the courts have already ruled he has the authority to do this, yet they still want to get revenge.

Can you imagine the Democrats running on the promise that they will not tap the phones of terroist calling into the United States.

 

[danarhea]

Just like Mr KidRocks yesterday when I mentioned Michael Moore's website, referencing the DNC in this case is counter-rhetorical. I'll try to speak in absolutes from now on, dana, so the sarcasm and irony don't go over your head.

And tell us, who else was banned permanently from that other board? Hmmm? :2razz:

Is he impeached yet? :rofl

It wasnt me. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to go over there and look at the membership. My account is still active. Why? Because I didnt act like you. But you have to admit, I did take your scalp on quite a few occasions over there, just like I took it again in this thread. And all you had to do to prevent it was to read the link and realize that it was a hard right publication that was talking about the possibilities of impeachment, and how the White House was now worried. You didnt have to lose your scalp again. All you had to do was overcome your laziness just enough to make one single, solitary click with your mouse. LOL.

In regard to Michael Moore, I sincerely doubt that the sister publication of the Washington Times, which is my link, would have anything to do with him. Try again - You seem to speaking so counter-rhetorically that the whole concept seems to have gone over your head.

 

[danarhea]

Unlike the Democrats who have been shown proof that the courts have already ruled he has the authority to do this, yet they still want to get revenge.

Can you imagine the Democrats running on the promise that they will not tap the phones of terroist calling into the United States.

I am not going to let you get away with that, Stinger. You are going to have to show the proof you are talking about. Where is the court decision that allows Bush to wiretap without warrants?

However, I will grant you this. You are arguing without attacking the messenger, and that is appreciated. Other than the lapse you just made about the courts, your arguments are pretty intelligent, even if I disagree with them.

 

[Stinger]

I am not going to let you get away with that, Stinger. You are going to have to show the proof you are talking about. Where is the court decision that allows Bush to wiretap without warrants?

However, I will grant you this. You are arguing without attacking the messenger, and that is appreciated. Other than the lapse you just made about the courts, your arguments are pretty intelligent, even if I disagree with them.

I have cited it many times here, Gonzales and the administration have cited it over and over, former AG Jamie Gorelick cited it in her statesments which I have also cited here. Why do I need to cite it again? Every president has wiretapped FOREIGN SIGNALS for intelligence purposes and that is allowed if they are coming into the United States from foreign sources.

Hey but let the Dems do it and be successful and then run on the premise that they will not do the same. I want to see them run on the premise that if they are tapping into a line from OBL to one of his associates and that associate lands in the US that they will cut the line and since there is no probable cause end it there. If that's the way you want our spying on our enemies to happen then support the Dems on this one.

 

[danarhea]

I have cited it many times here, Gonzales and the administration have cited it over and over, former AG Jamie Gorelick cited it in her statesments which I have also cited here. Why do I need to cite it again? Every president has wiretapped FOREIGN SIGNALS for intelligence purposes and that is allowed if they are coming into the United States from foreign sources.

Hey but let the Dems do it and be successful and then run on the premise that they will not do the same. I want to see them run on the premise that if they are tapping into a line from OBL to one of his associates and that associate lands in the US that they will cut the line and since there is no probable cause end it there. If that's the way you want our spying on our enemies to happen then support the Dems on this one.

We are not talking about foreign signals here, but about domestic surveilance activities, which has already been was already conducted on peace groups here in the US by the NSA and the Pentagon too, not to mention the FBI. That is much different than what you are talking about.

Also, the surveilance has to be broken down into 2 kinds.

1) The vacuum cleaner approach, in which the individuals are not known as a result.

2) The approach where individuals and organizations are singled out. This is where the FISA court comes in. It is pertaining to this area in which the law which has been broken.

In short, I agree with what you said, as long as it remains in the proper domain, but you have just mixed apples and oranges here.

 

[oldreliable67]

The administration is basing part of its legal authority on the proposition that the AUMF conferred on the administration the right to use all powers 'incidental' to those activities granted in the AUMF. These 'incidental' activities certainly include the collection of signals intelligence. The admin cites the Hamdi SC decision as a precedent.

It is an interesting point of law, that will, I hope, find its way to the courts for review. Given the advances in technology, and the ability to do things never envisioned by FISA (even as amended), we really need to clarify the legality of these points.

For more posts on this topic, see the thread "52% want impeachment".

 

[oldreliable67]

We are not talking about foreign signals here, but about domestic surveilance activities, which has already been was already conducted on peace groups here in the US by the NSA and the Pentagon too, not to mention the FBI. That is much different than what you are talking about

Oops, sorry, thought you were talking about the foreign intelligence surveillance.

 

[KCConservative]

Because I didnt act like you.

Really? How do I 'act', dana? We refute your silly threads every day and refrain from personal attacks. We criticize your posts, not you. So let's ask this, instead. How do you act? When your posts are called on the carpet by either me or redd or the countless other people that read your drivel, you run off crying about it? You whine, just like now, that you have been personally attacked. Boo hoo.

But you have to admit, I did take your scalp on quite a few occasions over there, just like I took it again in this thread.

Whatever makes you feel like a bigshot, dana. :roll:

And all you had to do to prevent it was to read the link and realize that it was a hard right publication that was talking about the possibilities of impeachment, and how the White House was now worried. You didnt have to lose your scalp again.

Obvious to most, and before your thong got all twisted, my original comment was witticism, it was sarcasm. You missed it. Nevermind.

All you had to do was overcome your laziness just enough to make one single, solitary click with your mouse.

See 'personal attacks' on the rules page. You know, it's that thing you say others do to you.

In regard to Michael Moore, I sincerely doubt that the sister publication of the Washington Times, which is my link, would have anything to do with him. Try again - You seem to speaking so counter-rhetorically that the whole concept seems to have gone over your head.

When I mentioned Michael Moore, dana, I was referring to yesterday's exchange with KidRocks. Sorry if you're unable to keep up.

Now run along, rhea. You've still got several Impeachment threads to write before the day's over.

 

[Navy Pride]

The left wing liberals wanted to impeach GWB the day he was elected.........It will not happen...........The only crime GWB has committed is trying to protect liberals butts.......

 

[The Real McCoy]

Do the impeachment activists really want Dick Cheney as president or does their hatred of Bush blind them from reality?

 

[Stinger]

The administration is basing part of its legal authority on the proposition that the AUMF conferred on the administration the right to use all powers 'incidental' to those activities granted in the AUMF. These 'incidental' activities certainly include the collection of signals intelligence. The admin cites the Hamdi SC decision as a precedent.

And it is probably their weakest arguement although with merit. The years of precidents and court decissions are on their side and present the stronger case IMO.

It is an interesting point of law, that will, I hope, find its way to the courts for review. Given the advances in technology, and the ability to do things never envisioned by FISA (even as amended), we really need to clarify the legality of these points.

And while I wish we did not have to waste valuable time and resouces on such things, well bring it on, let's have that discussion. A discussion of the merits of both sides of the arguements, the precidents and the constutition.

But that is NOT what the Democrats and the leftist want.

For more posts on this topic, see the thread "52% want impeachment".

Exactly my point.

 

[Stinger]

We are not talking about foreign signals here, but about domestic surveilance activities,

No the NSA issue with regard to warrantless wire taps is about foreign signals intelligence.

which has already been was already conducted on peace groups here in the US by the NSA and the Pentagon too, not to mention the FBI. That is much different than what you are talking about.

Because that's not what we are talking about. That's the first you've brought it up so that statement is dishonest. We are talking about the warrantless wire taps.

However it is perfectly legal for government agencies to monitor a public demonstration and especially prudent when groups who are participating have engage in violence and property damage at other such "rally's" and especially if they are taking place at military establishments and especially in a time of war. You know we just found a bunch of these groups guilty of violence and criminal acts preciesly because we do monitor them. And if they ever come to my town I will demand our law enforcement monitor them and ask the Feds to help to prevent such damage.

In short, I agree with what you said, as long as it remains in the proper domain, but you have just mixed apples and oranges here.

I don't see where I have.

 

[Stinger]

Oops, sorry, thought you were talking about the foreign intelligence surveillance.

We were...

 

[Navy Pride]

Do the impeachment activists really want Dick Cheney as president or does their hatred of Bush blind them from reality?

You have a point............Impeach GWB..............President Cheney..It has a real ring to it.........

 

[oldreliable67]

We were...

I thought so! In that case, I take back my oops!

 

[DeeJayH]

IF, and thats a big freaking if, they impeach Bush
are they going to take action against the Senators he informed, on numerous occasions, about the program as well, for it would seem they were complicit in it as well

I have heard nothing but rhetoric about impeaching him
and just because the Admin is preparing to defend against an impeachment, that does not imply anything about his actions that led to, what they consider a BOGUS impeachment, by a party that has nothing to offer but attacks and obstructionism