The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Dennis Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush
Unfortunately, there isn't a detailed breakdown of the articles of impeachment, but I'll update with that as soon as it's available.
Bravo, Dennis. Not only do you have a smoking hot wife, but you're doing what 1/3 of the country has been begging for since 2002. I'd like to talk about the possibility of anything coming out of this, and what it could mean to have a president impeached in a time when the executive branch's power is growing out of control. The thing I'm wondering is if our congress has the balls to risk voter alienation by supporting this. I know that a lot of southern folk tend to dislike Kucinich's gun control policy, so a vote for this is a vote against the NRA and its followers (according to crazy southern logic). So D&D, do you stand behind him? Do you think this could realistically go anywhere? Are Bush's actions worse than Bill Clinton's, specifically because there isn't concrete "proof"?
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Alot of people rail on how crazy some of Kucinich's policy ideas are (and they are), but in this instance he's doing the one thing his colleagues should have done a long fucking time ago. And he'll be remembered well for that.
Alot of people rail on how crazy some of Kucinich's policy ideas are (and they are), but in this instance he's doing the one thing his colleagues should have done a long fucking time ago. And he'll be remembered well for that.
You mean a meaningless gesture, well outside of the senatorial jurisdiction? Yeah.
Alot of people rail on how crazy some of Kucinich's policy ideas are (and they are), but in this instance he's doing the one thing his colleagues should have done a long fucking time ago. And he'll be remembered well for that.
You mean a meaningless gesture, well outside of the senatorial jurisdiction? Yeah.
Alot of people rail on how crazy some of Kucinich's policy ideas are (and they are), but in this instance he's doing the one thing his colleagues should have done a long fucking time ago. And he'll be remembered well for that.
You mean a meaningless gesture, well outside of the senatorial jurisdiction? Yeah.
Kucinich isn't in the Senate, he's a Representative, which is where impeachment starts.
Granted the meaningless part sticks, but it's not out of his jurisdiction.
What's the point? Even if this was 3 years ago look at the VP who you're handing the country over to.
Even if they could actually had soild "legal" grounds to begin proceedings no one sane would try. There are many reasons a president lets their VP pick their VP.
Fix'd
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
How is it useless to indicate that Bush's behavior has been unacceptable through an impeachment process? It's not going to get Bush out of the office in a useful or timely way, granted, but I see nothing wrong with giving him what is effectively a dishonorable discharge at the end of his term.
Other than that some of the stuff from Kucinich reeks of conspiracy theory-level exaggeration, that is.
It has to get through committee, get a simple majority of the House, and then a two-thirds majority of the Senate, proceedings presided over by the Chief Justice.
Salvation122 on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
why is the only reason to show this stuff so that it gets through? I'm happy someone is at least saying it, even knowing nothing will get done about it.
I'm wondering what Clinton did that was even remotely comparable to the kind of shit Bush/Cheney pull on a daily basis.
I'm pretty sure that if Bush or Cheney had publicly committed a felony they'd be strung up in a heartbeat except, hey, wait, they haven't really done anything illegal. They've been shitty fucking executives, but that's not cause for impeachment.
why is the only reason to show this stuff so that it gets through? I'm happy someone is at least saying it, even knowing nothing will get done about it.
Except he does this like every six months.
It's nothing but Kucinich screaming HEY LOOK AT ME I'M IMPORTANT
It has to get through committee, get a simple majority of the House, and then a two-thirds majority of the Senate, proceedings presided over by the Chief Justice.
So didn't Clinton's go through the same process Kucinich's is going through? Is there a big difference here? I fail to see how Kucinich's proposal has absolute zero chance. And even so, I don't think it matters. At this point it's a gesture.
I'm wondering what Clinton did that was even remotely comparable to the kind of shit Bush/Cheney pull on a daily basis.
I'm pretty sure that if Bush or Cheney had publicly committed a felony they'd be strung up in a heartbeat except, hey, wait, they haven't really done anything illegal. They've been shitty fucking executives, but that's not cause for impeachment.
Isn't lying to the public to get into war illegal? o_O
What about the kind of shit that goes in Guantanamo?
I'm wondering what Clinton did that was even remotely comparable to the kind of shit Bush/Cheney pull on a daily basis.
I'm pretty sure that if Bush or Cheney had publicly committed a felony they'd be strung up in a heartbeat except, hey, wait, they haven't really done anything illegal. They've been shitty fucking executives, but that's not cause for impeachment.
Can't we impeach the president based on mere incompetence?
And are you really going to tell me that both Bush and Cheney didn't actively lie to Americans and to Congress and to the press and so and and so forth? That seems willfully ignorant to me.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
You can only impeach for a crime. However, I believe that if the Congress wanted to, they could start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney simultaneously. Imagine Pelosi as president.
I'm wondering what Clinton did that was even remotely comparable to the kind of shit Bush/Cheney pull on a daily basis.
I'm pretty sure that if Bush or Cheney had publicly committed a felony they'd be strung up in a heartbeat except, hey, wait, they haven't really done anything illegal. They've been shitty fucking executives, but that's not cause for impeachment.
Isn't lying to the public to get into war illegal? o_O
Firstly, no, it isn't, and secondly, the Commission on the Inteligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction explicitly states that there was no evidence that Bush knowingly lied to anyone or that intelligence analysts were manipulated through political pressure.
What about the kind of shit that goes in Guantanamo?
Has not yet been found illegal, and would be subject to Ex Post Facto clause if it was so found later.
§ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
You'd have to reach pretty freaking hard to claim that Bush defrauded the US through Iraq, and "offense" is murky enough that it'd probably be hard to make it stick without evidence of an actual crime.
You'd have to reach pretty freaking hard to claim that Bush defrauded the US through Iraq, and "offense" is murky enough that it'd probably be hard to make it stick without evidence of an actual crime.
Doc I suspect the answer is actually "being a really unpopular dude"
Seems likely, but I'm not sure what he's doing aside from grandstanding. I mean, at this point everyone knows what's up with Bush being horrible; most people just don't care, as cynical as that sounds.
You'd have to reach pretty freaking hard to claim that Bush defrauded the US through Iraq, and "offense" is murky enough that it'd probably be hard to make it stick without evidence of an actual crime.
Posts
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gGwwovW_t4s
My favorite part of that video is Edwards laughing at the Patriot Act crack.
Yup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM&NR=1
God I love this man.
That's how you establish your role these days.
Kucinich isn't in the Senate, he's a Representative, which is where impeachment starts.
Granted the meaningless part sticks, but it's not out of his jurisdiction.
Even if they could actually had soild "legal" grounds to begin proceedings no one sane would try. There are many reasons a president picks their VP.
Fix'd
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Fuck. Seriously. You really want that nutjob Cheney to be in an even more powerful position?
I think that's why he's only doing it now, right at the end of the term.
In other news the sun rose this morning
Other than that some of the stuff from Kucinich reeks of conspiracy theory-level exaggeration, that is.
Totally
I'm not really sure how the process works, to be honest. How did Clinton's half-impeachment begin?
I'm pretty sure that if Bush or Cheney had publicly committed a felony they'd be strung up in a heartbeat except, hey, wait, they haven't really done anything illegal. They've been shitty fucking executives, but that's not cause for impeachment.
Except he does this like every six months.
It's nothing but Kucinich screaming HEY LOOK AT ME I'M IMPORTANT
So didn't Clinton's go through the same process Kucinich's is going through? Is there a big difference here? I fail to see how Kucinich's proposal has absolute zero chance. And even so, I don't think it matters. At this point it's a gesture.
Clinton got a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. You can't get blowjobs when you are the president.
Isn't lying to the public to get into war illegal? o_O
What about the kind of shit that goes in Guantanamo?
Can't we impeach the president based on mere incompetence?
And are you really going to tell me that both Bush and Cheney didn't actively lie to Americans and to Congress and to the press and so and and so forth? That seems willfully ignorant to me.
Has not yet been found illegal, and would be subject to Ex Post Facto clause if it was so found later.
Not sure if that's what he's invoking, though.
All of which is moot because hey no conspiracy
tell me how much and i'll double it
I'm just trying to figure out exactly what he's being charged with.
Seems likely, but I'm not sure what he's doing aside from grandstanding. I mean, at this point everyone knows what's up with Bush being horrible; most people just don't care, as cynical as that sounds.
My guess is "high crimes and misdemeanors."