Glad They Impeached Clinton

[BeFree]

Because it makes it so much easier to demand we now impeach these crooks.

The level of High Crimes that bushco is involved in is way higher than what Clinton was accused of, and when the comparison is made it leaves no choice but to move forward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Are there 67 people glad Clinton was impeached?

:evilgrin:

[dkofos]

3. Are you one of them??

[awoke_in_2003]

5. that is a great pic

in your sig. Who is it keeping tally?

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Adam Kokesh

He is the Marine who was threatened with losing his honorable discharge for participating in anti-war rallies in uniform.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. For all the good our demanding has done! QUICK! SOMEONE, ANYONE volunteer to give the psycho a BJ!!!

PLEASE, I'm begging you! He'd be Impeached in a days time.:(

[dkofos]

12. I volunteered to do that months ago, but dem leadership said no.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Well, that just ****SUCKS**** LOL!

:evilgrin:

[aquart]

4. No. It doesn't. It immunizes the bastard.

[BeFree]

7. Immunizes?!?!?

No, it crucifies.

Don't know where you are coming from, but it sure ain't close to where I sit. 20 out of 25 people I've talked to today agree with me.

[MrSlayer]

6. I think it has the opposite effect.

Because they impeached Clinton over something so ridiculous they made any subsequent impeachments over real and actual crimes look like petty revenge and further foolishness. I believe that was part of the plan all along. It didn't make it easier, it made it harder.

[Richardo]

8. I agree with this.

...and I have all along.

[BeFree]

10. For most of us

...it makes it easier. Of course, if someone is afraid to bring down the hammer, anything will scare them away.

So, the question is: who is scared and who isn't?

[MADem]

11. What a naive assessment. Fear isn't the issue, EVIDENCE is.

Congress does not have ANY.

But don't let that bother you, I guess. Keep stomping the foot and yelling. That'll work... NOT.

[BeFree]

14. No evidence?!?!?

What planet are you from?

There's more evidence than there ever has been that the crooks lied. And congress does have it, they are just scared to let it be known they have it. Scared, I tell ya, scared.

[MADem]

16. No, there isn't. List it.

Don;t give me the old "Lied the nation into war" bullshit. Lying ain't a crime. Like that, or not.

You might want to ascertain what 'evidence' actually is. It's not opinions gleaned from partisan publications.

Oh, I'm from the reality-based Planet Earth. Not Planet Wishin-N-Hopin'.

[BeFree]

19. HR 333 has the list

Read it and weep. Cheney is going down as soon as all the chickenshits grow some balls.

[MADem]

41. Way to shift from Bush to Cheney. I'd rather start with Gonzalez.

You round up the little fish first. Everyone knows that, well...most everybody, apparently.

[Poiuyt]

29. The standards for impeachment are different than for a court of law

According to Elizabeth Holtzman. She was on the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating impeachment against Nixon. She said that they were all schooled by Constitutional scholars as to what was meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors." She explained that it was a rather old fashioned term that meant abuse of power, and that proving a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt is not needed. If Congress feels that the president is acting above the law, then he should be impeached.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman

As for what Bush has done that warrants impeachment, there are plenty of articles and books written by scholars out there. You might want to read afterdowningstreet.com for a large selection of information on impeachment.

Here are some sample articles of impeachment that have been drafted:

http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=articles

[MADem]

40. And those standards can be viewed as VALID or NOT VALID.

Or let me put it another way: For Political Reasons, or For Reasons of the National Good.

Without evidence, an impeachment will come off as for Political Reasons. It will cast Bush in the role of victim, as an object of sympathy. And without proof, there will be no conviction. Just a show trial, with Bush emerging stronger after he "bests" the Evil Congress. That's how it will be played. And it's why it won't happen without evidence.

It's not a question of opinion, here. Or what the Congress "feels." Yes, it COULD be, according to the way an impeachment CAN be handled, but it is not going to happen that way in this instance. Because the OPINION of the Congress is that he should NOT be impeached. They don't want to do it on dodgy proof.

The numbers are not there in support of it, and there won't be without proof--that pesky old "We don't have the votes" you hear everyone from Obey to Murtha saying.

However, if evidence comes forth that shows Monkey has broken the law, and the trail leads back to him, then it won't be a question of OPINION anymore. It will be a question of law. And there are a shitload of Lawyer-Legislators on the Hill who understand the rule of law.

Right now, they won't touch impeachment with a forty foot pole. With evidence, they'll toss their poles aside. But not without it. No matter what Elizabeth Holtzman or anyone else says. That's just the plain reality of the situation.

I don't say those Articles don't have basis in fact, but there's no proof attached to any of them that will stick to Bush right now. The Monkey has been clever. He's kept all nefarious dealings well away from himself.

[Poiuyt]

52. A lot of the evidence is on videotape

Such as Bush bragging about warrantless spying. Other crimes would require some digging (such as how he diverted money from Afghanistan to use in Iraq before Congress had approved it). With all the lawyers and Congressional aides in Washington, it shouldn't take long.

I agree with you about the reality, I disagree with you about the evidence. If the Congressional leaders weren't afraid of being painted as partisan and just out for retribution, they'd be on this like flies on shit.

You're right that the votes in the Senate to convict and remove probably aren't there (assuming the dynamics don't change). I say that the House should start impeachment inquiry anyway so that they go on record as being against Bush and his policies. I would hate for history to show that no one care about what he was doing. I would also hate for another president in 30 years trying to pull the same shit as Bush.

[MADem]

54. Did he raise his right hand before making those statements and swear to tell the truth?

If he didn't, he could tell you the sky was green and that you were a football hero, and it wouldn't matter. He could say, like Reagan did, that the bombing would begin in five minutes.

All of his bragging wasn't sworn testimony under oath to an officer of the judiciary. And there's the matter of a signing statement. Is there one where he absolves himself? Does it have a convoluted justification? Is it classified?

My point is, you do that digging FIRST, then you take action.

Shoot first and ask questions later is a GOP tactic, not a Democratic one.

Holding hearings is a way of registering disapproval, and Congress IS doing that. Those hearings may well turn up EVIDENCE. But to impeach without evidence is disturbingly REPUBLICAN, and I just can't get behind it from that standpoint. With evidence, I'm there. But I won't have to be, because all of those lawyers in the legislature from both sides of the aisle will be there ahead of me.

[Liberal Veteran]

44. There is plenty that warrants, to be sure, but have you considered the consequences of it?

Impeachment isn't conviction and only the most moronic of fools believes there is even a snowball's chance in hell that we could get a conviction.

So what happens if we impeach and fail?

[Poiuyt]

48. Historically speaking, bringing up charges of impeachment has been a political winner

For Republic's Sake, Pelosi Must Ponder Impeachment
by John Nichols

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

==

The benefit of an impeachment fight to an opposition party comes not in the removal of an individual who happens to wear the label of another party. Rather, it comes in the elevation of the discourse to a higher ground where politicians and voters can ponder the deeper meaning of democracy.

When the whole of a political party finally concludes that it must take up the weighty responsibility of impeaching a president, as Democrats did in 1974 but Republicans never fully did in 1998, its language is clarified and transfigured. What Walt Whitman referred to as "long dumb voices" are suddenly transformed into clarion calls as a dialogue of governmental marginalia gives way to discussion of the intent of the founders, the duty of the people's representatives, and the renewal of the republic.

more -

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm

[Raine]

38. TOTALLY agree nt

[KharmaTrain]

56. Also To Destroy The Indepent Prosecutor Law

Clinton's inqusition was a complete dumbing down and distortion of what high crimes and misdemanors are. Sadly, it was so distorted many here feel its some magic wand that will wipe away the boooosh regime...that it's the remedy rather than the end result of the process.

The other game the Repugnicans were playing was to poison the Independent Prosecutor law once and for all. This is one thing that Democrats do not have now that would be invaluable in going after this regime...and those who clamor for why we can't "string the bastards up"...this is another major reason. Now other means will have to be used to get the crimes of this regime inwhich real articles based on real crimes can be based on.

[MADem]

9. Actually, it makes it harder, not easier. In retrospect, a censure would have done the trick.

The impeachment of Clinton was political, and it accelerated the downfall of Newt Gingrich.

It was a stupid idea then, and it causes people now, more than a decade later, to HESITATE when initiating impeachment proceedings. Because they remember the UNFAIRNESS of it all.

It wasn't justified then. That's why people want to avoid a repeat of a political/witch hunt impeachment process. Without solid evidence and credible witnesses, willing to testify truthfully, there will be no impeachment. Like it, or not.

[BeFree]

13. Ok

So it makes it hard for people like you. Fine, I got your number.

But for most people it doesn't faze them because they know if it were them they'd be in Gitmo already for similar crimes.

Besides, Clinton did a High Crime. He lied to us. And he was impeached for that lie. Just glad he wasn't convicted.

[MADem]

15. No, you don't " have my number." But I sure as hell have yours.

Keep stomping that foot. Knock yourself out.

I'll continue to watch the investigations of staff already underway in both Houses that might reveal that trail of breadcrumbs or produce an honest witness, not scream repetitively like a banshee for impeachment without evidence.

My 'number' you see, is RULE of LAW. Not fringe lunacy.

[BeFree]

17. Rule of law?

The law says impeach. The pukes used it but you are afraid to?

I got your number.... you don't think a crime has been committed or you'd be raising hell too. Hey, be free to be uninformed. As for me I will be free to demand justice and your kind will never stop me.

[MADem]

18. The pukes, as you say, used it in PERVERSE fashion. So you want us to COPY them?

You want the Democrats to pervert the rule of law because the GOP did?

What a preposterous and immature justification.

I suggest that you 'be free' to get some education on the entire subject of the Clinton impeahment, AND 'rule of law.'

Most people outgrow that "But HEEEEEE did it TOOOOOOOOOO!" bullshit at what, Age 7, the Age of Reason???

And ya know what? If you understood the rule of law, you'd understand that it doesn't matter what I 'think' or what YOU 'think.' What matters is that pesky shit you keep ignoring--EVIDENCE.

Good grief. That takes the cake. Not just the shitty argument, which sucked totally, the willful ignorance of basic concepts, but the footstomping drama of the post too. It was just two steps shy of a Flounce, really.

[BeFree]

21. Look who's stomping their feet now

You.

You are so bad. Go to your room. LOL

Perverse? You seem to think bushco is not guilty... you can't find evidence? Not even funny, MADem.

[MADem]

34. You do have definition problems. I point out to you your preposterous arguments

and you call that stomping. Ask for a dictionary for your next birthday, why don't you?

And there you go again, with the "YOU SEEM TO" arguments.

I won't say that you 'seem to'--I'll say it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. You like to see yourself type, I guess...

List that evidence you say is lying all over the place, yet you 'seem to' be unable to list for us. You haven't managed to do that, even while you toss sad little 'insults' about how I 'seem to' be what only your mind 'seems to' see...

:eyes:

[madokie]

22. This old man agrees with you 100%

ever notice how some use anything as an excuse, not enough votes, no crime commited etc. sad actually

[BeFree]

24. Real sad

Sad that so many are willing to lay down and let bushco roll right over them.

No crime committed? Gawd, that's sick.

[MADem]

36. Sad that "so many" will suspend the rule of law just because of hatred.

Sad that "so many" will ignore the foundations of our nation just because they dislike a little Monkey.

Sad that "so many" don't know their history, and are cheerfully ready to behave like the worst little vengeful Republicans during the Clinton impeachment.

[MADem]

35. OK, come on--list those Articles of Impeachment, why don't you?

Not the same old tired bullshit ones that don't have a leg to stand on--the ones that will stick. That will pass the smell test. That will make it from the House to the Senate. That are backed up by evidence, facts and testimony, not wishful thinking and guesses.

I'd love to see it happen, but a failure is worse than none at all.

And I'm one of those "some" you are speaking of--and I am not using excuses, I'm using my brains.

Where are those VOTES you dismiss as though that is not a problem? Tell me. Tell all of us, since you know so much.

No one has said CRIMES were not committed--the challenge is proving it. You'd think quite differently if you were in the dock, accused of a crime you didn't commit. Then, that pesky "rule of law" would matter to YOUR ass.

It is "sad, actually" how you can suspend the rule of law solely for partisan reasons. The guys in Gitmo should get it? So should Bush.

It's what the GOP does, frame the argument for partisan reasons, toss the law aside because of hate. Not the Democrats--we're BETTER than that. Well, most of us, anyway.

[azurnoir]

23. Little things help

Little things like a traceable provable crime with an actual police report, Watergate started as a burglary investigation.
Little things like the numbers to actually put the man out of office, Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate, which is why he stayed in office. The same thing would happen with Bush, there are not enough Dems and/or repubs who would cross party lines in the Senate, we need 67 votes there not just a simple majority.
But impeaching him in Congress would really show him wouldn't it? Give him the finger big time, feel oh so cool, kind of like Cindy S. meeting with Hugo Chavez, nice way to piss off the GOP but really what does it do to accomplish anything and in fact could hurt the cause that is supposedly what started the whole mess in the first place.

[BeFree]

25. Hurt the cause?

You've lost me there.

As to the votes not being there.... if we the people will just stand up and not bend over any longer, the votes will be there. But the question is: do the crimes bushco has committed rise above Clinton's?

Everyone knows the answer to that. Well, everyone that is who isn't scared to take their heads out of the sand, or out of their butts.

[azurnoir]

30. We the People

means many different things, The People in say NYC or Minneapolis/St Paul are not Tje People in Tuscaloosa or Fort Wayne. The ones we have to win over are the ones that put Bush in office 'cause baby Jesus would have colic if John Kerry had won.
As for hurting the cause, if Bush gets impeached by Congress and acquitted in the Senate he'll become a nartyr, or that power grabbing Pelosi women trying to be President, remember Clinton's approval ratings soared after his impeachment.
As for Cindy, what did her meeting with Chavez do to stop the war? Nada, in fact it lost her the support of some long time Dems (like my in-laws) who are in their 60's and 70's. In the long run it made her look like a "Hanoi Jane" wanna be, but we are on a different, much more sophisticated playing field then in the '70's.

[PassingFair]

31. Little things like OUTING A CIA AGENT?

And then COMMUTING the sentence of the liar that
is covering up the conspiracy.



What the HELL is is going to take?

[azurnoir]

33. Who they still claim was not covert

doesn't matter, really, the GOP Senators play to the 25%'s and those financing their campaigns, they will not cross party lines.

[MADem]

43. She lost her court case.

So take that one off the table right now, even if we "know" that it is true.

[Liberal Veteran]

50. Not exactly. Her case was never heard.

Due a legal technicality her case was dismissed. There is subtle, but clear difference.

[MADem]

55. She got no redress. It ends up being the same thing, the same result.

[Liberal Veteran]

39. Lying is a "high crime"....damn! Can I borrow your halo?

What a stupid thing to say.

[MADem]

45. He did NOT lie to us. Jesus, where do you get this lame, recycled bullshit???

He lied to an officer of the court UNDER OATH during a deposition. Paula Jones, remember???

He didn't lie to US.

Go check your history.

You're proud of your lack of knowledge, though. I'll give ya that!!!

[Liberal Veteran]

47. Well, yes, he did...but that hardly was a crime.

"I did not have sex with that woman...Miss Lewinsky"

He lied to us. And honestly, I couldn't care less since it was none of our fucking business to begin with.

[MADem]

53. Call me old fashioned

But what the two of them did, to me, wasn't SEX. That was what was called in the old days "heavy petting." And you'd go to hell just as quick, so they said!

Oddly enough, most of the younger generation agrees with my fogey ass on that issue!

I will grant that he "parsed." As politicians, all of them, do.

[PassingFair]

27. There are MANY willing to testify truthfully.

And if we started JAILING some others for CONTEMPT of CONGRESS




There would be NO SHORTAGE of bean-spillers.


There are criminals pillaging our country.

We are going BANKRUPT.

[BeFree]

28. Indeed

It is a High Crime just in the way they have stolen our financial future. A future which looked so good in 2000.

And some folks are willing to let bushco slide?

[MADem]

49. There you go with the 'some folks' bullshit....AGAIN.

Like it's our fault that Congress doesn't have evidence. Why don't you run round and get it for them, since 'you seem' to be the only one here who has their shit together on this subject matter?

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

32. We can't jail them, the AG won't enforce contempt of congress

[MADem]

46. Well, that's certainly an option.

Do you see Congress doing it, though? Where will they hold them? In the House Slammer?

[Raine]

37. Disagree

it makes our side look vindictive even though there is a good reason. Impeaching Clinton for nothing has made impeachment nothing but a political tool to be used for revenge.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. The bottom line now is that without the votes to convict, and you know we don't have them...

....what fucking good would it do?

Hell, I want that bastard evicted from the White House, tarred, feathered, chained to a rock for all eternity with a vulture eating his liver out every night.

But what really is going to happen with articles of impeachment if you know damned well they won't succeed?

[Greyhound]

51. I thought you were being sarcastic, now I have to ask, "where have you been

for the last seven years"?