Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

Tsukasa Buddha · 9th June 2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

Linky.

Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN.

Woot

! Kucinich has still got it!

(I won't say what exactly "it" is, but it is in the DSM-IV)

JEROME DA GNOME · 9th June 2008, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Linky.

Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN.

Woot

! Kucinich has still got it!

(I won't say what exactly "it" is, but it is in the DSM-IV)

This will not even get as far as the BS impeachment of Clinton.

Clinton should have been impeached for allowing the sale of missle technology to the Communist Chinese, instead in league with the GOP he was impeached for BJs.

Kaylee · 9th June 2008, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Linky.

Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN.

Very interesting. In order to read this into the Congressional record, did the articles of impeachment have to have been passed by a committee? Did this need to be put on the calender by the Speaker of the House?

Or was this something that Kucinich could simply do on his own?

My understanding of how the govt works has some real holes in it, I admit.

Kevin_Lowe · 9th June 2008, 11:07 PM

Bring it on.

mrbaracuda · 9th June 2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Woot

! Kucinich has still got it!

I think you forgot to include this in your quotations:

Quote:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."

Kucinich is also "off the table", if you know what I mean. And it being not much I guess.

thaiboxerken · 10th June 2008, 12:01 AM

I think it'll be hard to show that Bush actually lied rather than just being a moron with convictions that lead to poor decisions.

DoubtingStephen · 10th June 2008, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Linky.

Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN.

Woot

! Kucinich has still got it!

He is a great citizen, and he clearly loves his country very much. Plus he is so cute and cuddly looking, I just want to give him a bear hug every time I see him.

It's a shame that only .001% of the population take him seriously, because I believe his criticisms of Our Glorious Christian Leader are spot on.

I guess he does serve some purpose for the rest of the Demoncratic Party, in that they can point to the cute little thing and say "Look, we're not that left wing."

I agree with the others who've said that nothing will come of this, but at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation.

<Comic_Book_Guy>
Worst President ever!
</Comic_Book_Guy>

mrbaracuda · 10th June 2008, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation.

Quote:

only .001% of the population take him seriously

Hm, I doubt that.

Darth Rotor · 10th June 2008, 04:46 AM

IIRC, he moved last year to impeach VP Cheney.

His leadership is such that most of the Congress has him on ignore.

Too bad, it would have been interesting to see this play out. Two baby boomer presidents, two impeachment proceedings. Another reason not to vote for Hillary: wrong generation to be president.

DR

XBoxWarrior · 10th June 2008, 04:53 AM

Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this.

I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure
wont talk about it.

News?

Rob Lister · 10th June 2008, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this.

I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure
wont talk about it.

News?

That's the point, its NOT news. Perhaps if fellow-democrat Nancy hadn't killed it in committee, it would be news. But she did, and it isn't.

Now, I'm fairly certain if it was introduced (or at least co-sponsored) by a republican, it would major news on the political talking-head news tour regardless of being 'off the table'. But it wasn't, and it isn't.

Beerina · 10th June 2008, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Kaylee

Very interesting. In order to read this into the Congressional record, did the articles of impeachment have to have been passed by a committee? Did this need to be put on the calender by the Speaker of the House?

Or was this something that Kucinich could simply do on his own?

My understanding of how the govt works has some real holes in it, I admit.

Any congresscritter can read whatever the hell he wants into the record*. The real question is are these some kind of actual preliminary impeachement documents that have gotten any further than that with respect to any committees?

* They don't even have to read it. They can order a ~~servant~~ ~~loser yokel patronage appointee~~ clerk to read the entire thing for him, or even just insert it "as if read".

Darth Rotor · 10th June 2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think it'll be hard to show that Bush actually lied rather than just being a moron with convictions that lead to poor decisions.

Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. Then again, since it's a political proceeding (see the impeachment of Andrew Johnson) I doubt the Congress folks give a hoot.

Absent 60 votes in the Senate ahead of time, is it worth the bother?

Maybe two years ago.

Now, maybe it's time to let the lame duck swim off into the sunset.

DR

Doubt · 10th June 2008, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. Then again, since it's a political proceeding (see the impeachment of Andrew Johnson) I doubt the Congress folks give a hoot.

Absent 60 votes in the Senate ahead of time, is it worth the bother?

Maybe two years ago.

Now, maybe it's time to let the lame duck swim off into the sunset.

DR

Add to that the amount of time it would take to have the impeachment and trial run their course. Bush's term could expire before the whole thing was over. And if it was over quickly you get president Cheney.

fuelair · 10th June 2008, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

He is a great citizen, and he clearly loves his country very much. Plus he is so cute and cuddly looking, I just want to give him a bear hug every time I see him.

It's a shame that only .001% of the population take him seriously, because I believe his criticisms of Our Glorious Christian Leader are spot on.

I guess he does serve some purpose for the rest of the Demoncratic Party, in that they can point to the cute little thing and say "Look, we're not that left wing."

I agree with the others who've said that nothing will come of this, but at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation.

<Comic_Book_Guy>
Worst President ever!
</Comic_Book_Guy>

Kucinich is quite right on this matter - and not the only person to have come up with the idea. I truly wish it would/could happen just as I would love Shrub to be tried and properly punished for treason. But it isn't going to happen any more than large corporations are going to be allowed to go under and help will be provided to keep that from happening to most non-political individuals.

Unfortunately, being right on one thing does not make an electable person out of a partial nutter.

Brainster · 10th June 2008, 08:50 AM

Anybody have a link to the text of the actual 35 counts? Even Kucinich appears to know this isn't going anywhere; there's no mention of it on his website, where the latest news is that he's looking into the suspension of home-equity lines of credit.

JoeEllison · 10th June 2008, 09:02 AM

Kucinich is correct in his charges, of course. Only politics has prevented impeachment from taking place. From a legal standpoint, the actions of the Bush administration have very clearly sunk to the level at which impeachment is a very obvious and proper step.

KateHL · 10th June 2008, 09:29 AM

I'm going to say this is obviously symbolic ... and I'm going to say I adore him for it. I've always loved Kucinich.

Ysidro · 10th June 2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by KateHW

I'm going to say this is obviously symbolic ... and I'm going to say I adore him for it. I've always loved Kucinich.

I've always loved Mrs. Kucinich.

Cicero · 10th June 2008, 06:49 PM

The chances of any impeachment proceeding going forward make Kucinch's presidential run look viable in comparison. Maybe he could summon those aliens he saw from Shirley MacLaine's porch for extraterrestrial help in the matter. He will need to consult with the other bug wit MacLaine for contact instructions.

l0k0 · 10th June 2008, 09:59 PM

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law

. Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

Kaylee · 10th June 2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Any congresscritter can read whatever the hell he wants into the record*. The real question is are these some kind of actual preliminary impeachement documents that have gotten any further than that with respect to any committees?

* They don't even have to read it. They can order a ~~servant~~ ~~loser yokel patronage appointee~~ clerk to read the entire thing for him, or even just insert it "as if read".

Thanks Beerina. I didn't realize that an entry in the Congressional Record could be so irrelevant as to what was actually going on in the various committees and what was scheduled on the calendar by the Speaker.

So I found TBs OP to be really startling. But now that I know...

Well it was still a good move by Kucinich. Good for him.

mrbaracuda · 11th June 2008, 02:15 AM

I'm worried about Tsukasa and remarks like this:

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Woot

! Kucinich has still got it!

Wheezebucket · 11th June 2008, 02:20 AM

Ah, Kucinich. He drives Cleveland to bankruptcy and then they send him off to Washington to bankrupt everyone else, too!

I get the whole not liking Bush thing, I'm right there with you, but just because he also dislikes Bush doesn't make him a great politician.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th June 2008, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this.

I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure
wont talk about it.

News?

Olberman did, and actually had a Constitutional Law professor on to discuss it. The opinion, no question there were a number of impeachable offenses in the mix. And the sad fact is according to the law prof., that Congress is duplicitous in letting Bush get away with these abuses of power. They are more worried about the next election than they are about the very important Constitutional principles involved. The Dems, included Obama BTW, care more about their likely gain of both the White House and the Congress so they are afraid to take a chance.

I find that rather frightening considering it could set a really bad precedent. And if Bush does any serious damage in the next few months what will that say then?

It is also extremely disturbing that the news media and much of the public I assume are not outraged by the things Bush has done.

Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is.

Here's a link to the Olbermann piece.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th June 2008, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. . ...
DR

Actually, I don't believe that is true. The second thing you posted is what is true. The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

Darth Rotor · 11th June 2008, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Perhaps you are right, except for the word proof. The law prof, according to you, points to "evidence." There is evidence in support of some complaints and charges, sure, but a great deal of what is objected to is interpretation, and loophole diving. The entire Gitmo deal hinges upon two differing legal viewpoints of what is or is not within the letter of the law.

Look at the case of Scooter Libby, who was found guilty, though of a cover up. There is no reason to think that where these is smoke there isn't fire, so perhaps that is what the professor is alluding to.

When it comes to substantive breaking of regs or rules, we find Armitage admitted screwing up in the Plame case, a while after the fact, and was basically left alone. Curious, given the amount of sound and fury over the Plame/Wilson case.

The whole thing is swimming in politics.

Quote:

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

Depends on what you are looking for, but let's go back to the original point Dennis is pursuing: impeachment. It is an inherently political process, infested with all that politics brings with it. The impeachment proceedings versus William Jefferson Clinton amply demonstrated that.

Let us suppose that the law professor is correct. There is evidence in surplus of all sorts of illegality, high crimes, misdemeanors, skullduggery, coverups, and so on.

Why did the Cheney impeachment initiative go nowhere? If the evidence is there, why the inaction in Congress?

My point on the burden of proof has to do with a powerful enough batch of evidence that eight Senators cross the aisle ,and vote against the President. Remember, politics. I'd not mix a courtroom setting with a proceeding in Congress. I don't hold lawyers and judges in such low regard.

DR

Pardalis · 11th June 2008, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is.

Funny that you chose to compare a Democrat to a Republican...

I mean, you could have said the same thing with Clinton... Oh right.

JEROME DA GNOME · 11th June 2008, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by l0k0

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law

. Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.

ImaginalDisc · 11th June 2008, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.

That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained.

Darth Rotor · 11th June 2008, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained.

Which is why the checks and balances model includes the third party, the Supreme Court, as the honest broker when the other two branches get into a dispute over the Constitutionality of one thing or another.

It is also why impeachment is a venue for removing criminal and illegal activity in the executive branch.

Think for a moment here, Jerome is on the right track. Congress puts a law together. President vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto. Executive refuses to execute. What next? Charges. Into court. The court rules. One of the two sides is deemed to be correct, or more Constitutionally correct. It is not correct to assume that the legislative branch is by default and position correct. It could be ruled either way, depending upon the case.

What the executive would be doing in that case is challenging the legislative body: oh, you say it's Constitutional? Well, I'm calling your bluff, off to court we go.

Checks and balances in action.

DR

Pardalis · 11th June 2008, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by l0k0

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law

. Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

Yeah, I skimmed through it and I don't think most of them are impeachable.

Quote:

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that?

Quote:

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

That one is really contrived.

First of all I don't think the 9/11 attacks were conflated. How can you measure how an event is being conflated beyond its scope anyway?

Also, I don't think they've ever said that Saddam was behind 9/11, but put him in the context of possible attacks of the same nature, which is not far fetched.

Some of them are just bizarre:

Quote:

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

?

Quote:

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/grou...erhealthissues

I guess the twoofers got to him. Why doesn't he blame AQ for this one, aren't they the ones who made the buildings come down in the first place?

pgwenthold · 11th June 2008, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by l0k0

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

If it happened before the Patriot Act was passed, then it doesn't matter.

mrbaracuda · 11th June 2008, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that?

But it's secret! So secret!

Pardalis · 11th June 2008, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

But it's secret! So secret!

Like a secret hand shake?

Darth Rotor · 11th June 2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

Congress is complicit in that, since they fund defense appropriations that get such things as body armor. So, Congress would have to show that it appropriated and approved body armor in X budget and X supplemental, and DoD blithely ignored that appropriation.

Dennis ought not to shoot himself in the foot like that.

DR

mrbaracuda · 11th June 2008, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Like a secret hand shake?

Funny you mention this! How dare you expose us! Next thing you know you got a horde of Pardalis with bullhorns yelling at cars making the elitist mad!

Cicero · 11th June 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Actually, I don't believe that is true. The second thing you posted is what is true. The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

I'm sure you were in agreement with all the legal reasons Professor Turley cited when he testified as a constitutional scholar in favor of the Clinton impeachment. What would your idol Hillary say?

davefoc · 11th June 2008, 09:19 AM

Darth Rotor said it above, but just to repeat impeachment is a political process. There is barely anything objective about it.

Its only practical purpose is to provide a mechanism for removing a president that is so obviously a problem that his own party will move to remove him. That was the case with Nixon after the tapes became available but Nixon would never have been removed from office without this extraordinary event.

I think Bush is the worst president of my life and I think that some of his actions should be impeachable. None the less if I was a Democrat I would vote against impeachment. Until a reasonable contingent of Republicans get on board there is no chance that Bush would be removed from office as the result of an impeachment and it is not clear that the swing voters are going to be all that enthused about an impeachment that is purely a political show, especially at this point in the Bush presidency.

I'm happy that Kuchich did his thing here, but as a practical matter it is not going very far because there just aren't going to be many other Democrats with him on this when the political consequences are so uncertain.

The more interesting question to me is whether I would vote for impeachment if I was a Republican congressman with views similar to mine on this. Doing so would likely alienate me from my party permanently. I would have difficulty getting bills passed and the chances of getting party support for pork for my district would be zero. On the other hand the corrupt and inept Bush administration has savaged the Republican Party and by not taking a stand against it the Republican Party has doomed itself to minority status, probably for at least the next ten years or so.

So what to do? I might try to figure out what was in the best interest of my country and just take that path with the consequences be damned. But if I was the sort of fellow who would do something like that I probably never would have gotten the party support to get elected in the first place.

DoubtingStephen · 11th June 2008, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by davefoc

The more interesting question to me is whether I would vote for impeachment if I was a Republican congressman with views similar to mine on this. Doing so would likely alienate me from my party permanently.

As usual, Davefoc, a very well worded message.

Maybe the best thing Republican legislators can do for themselves right now is to repudiate some components of the Party of Jesus as it currently exists.

I think we may see a dramatic reshuffling in the Republican Party over the next few years. It is conceivable, to me at least, that this election will be more catastrophic for them than 2006 was. I think they may need to completely reinvent themselves in order to go forward.

The first thing they should do is renounce neocons and dominionists, two influences that have virtually brought them to ruin, along with hundreds of thousands of corpses.

While I might be tickled if they also divorced all of the Fundamentalist wing of their party, that is unrealistic. The Republican Party has become synonymous with Fundamentalist Christianity IMHO, and while it seemed like a great marriage in 1992, Fundamentalism is not doing so well with young people today.

If the Republican Party were to morph themselves into the original type of conservative that tries to conserve things instead of blowing everything up, and if they are able to see that being green is consistent with being conservative, I think their future prospects might improve.

Note that a great deal of wishful thinking was used in the construction of this message.

9th June 2008, 10:03 PM	#1
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,302	Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment Quote: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record. Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes. Linky. Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN. Woot ! Kucinich has still got it! (I won't say what exactly "it" is, but it is in the DSM-IV)
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

9th June 2008, 10:10 PM	#2
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,837	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Linky. Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN. Woot ! Kucinich has still got it! (I won't say what exactly "it" is, but it is in the DSM-IV) This will not even get as far as the BS impeachment of Clinton. Clinton should have been impeached for allowing the sale of missle technology to the Communist Chinese, instead in league with the GOP he was impeached for BJs.
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,837

9th June 2008, 10:28 PM	#3
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,280	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Linky. Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN. Very interesting. In order to read this into the Congressional record, did the articles of impeachment have to have been passed by a committee? Did this need to be put on the calender by the Speaker of the House? Or was this something that Kucinich could simply do on his own? My understanding of how the govt works has some real holes in it, I admit.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,280

9th June 2008, 11:07 PM	#4
Kevin_Lowe Guest Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,221	Bring it on.
Kevin_Lowe Guest Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,221

9th June 2008, 11:44 PM	#5
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Woot ! Kucinich has still got it! I think you forgot to include this in your quotations: Quote: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table." Kucinich is also "off the table", if you know what I mean. And it being not much I guess.
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797

10th June 2008, 12:01 AM	#6
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 32,099	I think it'll be hard to show that Bush actually lied rather than just being a moron with convictions that lead to poor decisions.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

10th June 2008, 12:16 AM	#7
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,545	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Linky. Yes, he read all of them, taking a few hours on CSPAN. Woot ! Kucinich has still got it! He is a great citizen, and he clearly loves his country very much. Plus he is so cute and cuddly looking, I just want to give him a bear hug every time I see him. It's a shame that only .001% of the population take him seriously, because I believe his criticisms of Our Glorious Christian Leader are spot on. I guess he does serve some purpose for the rest of the Demoncratic Party, in that they can point to the cute little thing and say "Look, we're not that left wing." I agree with the others who've said that nothing will come of this, but at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation. <Comic_Book_Guy> Worst President ever! </Comic_Book_Guy>
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

10th June 2008, 01:30 AM	#8
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation. Quote: only .001% of the population take him seriously Hm, I doubt that.
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797

10th June 2008, 04:46 AM	#9
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	IIRC, he moved last year to impeach VP Cheney. His leadership is such that most of the Congress has him on ignore. Too bad, it would have been interesting to see this play out. Two baby boomer presidents, two impeachment proceedings. Another reason not to vote for Hillary: wrong generation to be president. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th June 2008, 04:53 AM	#10
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,228	Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this. I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure wont talk about it. News?
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,228

10th June 2008, 05:24 AM	#11
Rob Lister Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this. I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure wont talk about it. News? That's the point, its NOT news. Perhaps if fellow-democrat Nancy hadn't killed it in committee, it would be news. But she did, and it isn't. Now, I'm fairly certain if it was introduced (or at least co-sponsored) by a republican, it would major news on the political talking-head news tour regardless of being 'off the table'. But it wasn't, and it isn't.
Rob Lister Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,504

10th June 2008, 06:52 AM	#12
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 31,159	Originally Posted by Kaylee Very interesting. In order to read this into the Congressional record, did the articles of impeachment have to have been passed by a committee? Did this need to be put on the calender by the Speaker of the House? Or was this something that Kucinich could simply do on his own? My understanding of how the govt works has some real holes in it, I admit. Any congresscritter can read whatever the hell he wants into the record. The real question is are these some kind of actual preliminary impeachement documents that have gotten any further than that with respect to any committees? They don't even have to read it. They can order a ~~servant~~ ~~loser yokel patronage appointee~~ clerk to read the entire thing for him, or even just insert it "as if read".
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

10th June 2008, 07:05 AM	#13
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I think it'll be hard to show that Bush actually lied rather than just being a moron with convictions that lead to poor decisions. Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. Then again, since it's a political proceeding (see the impeachment of Andrew Johnson) I doubt the Congress folks give a hoot. Absent 60 votes in the Senate ahead of time, is it worth the bother? Maybe two years ago. Now, maybe it's time to let the lame duck swim off into the sunset. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th June 2008, 07:13 AM	#14
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,365	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. Then again, since it's a political proceeding (see the impeachment of Andrew Johnson) I doubt the Congress folks give a hoot. Absent 60 votes in the Senate ahead of time, is it worth the bother? Maybe two years ago. Now, maybe it's time to let the lame duck swim off into the sunset. DR Add to that the amount of time it would take to have the impeachment and trial run their course. Bush's term could expire before the whole thing was over. And if it was over quickly you get president Cheney.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,365	__________________ 45 es un titere

10th June 2008, 08:32 AM	#15
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen He is a great citizen, and he clearly loves his country very much. Plus he is so cute and cuddly looking, I just want to give him a bear hug every time I see him. It's a shame that only .001% of the population take him seriously, because I believe his criticisms of Our Glorious Christian Leader are spot on. I guess he does serve some purpose for the rest of the Demoncratic Party, in that they can point to the cute little thing and say "Look, we're not that left wing." I agree with the others who've said that nothing will come of this, but at least it is in the Congressional Record, and this will be available to historians documenting the worst President in the history of our nation. <Comic_Book_Guy> Worst President ever! </Comic_Book_Guy> Kucinich is quite right on this matter - and not the only person to have come up with the idea. I truly wish it would/could happen just as I would love Shrub to be tried and properly punished for treason. But it isn't going to happen any more than large corporations are going to be allowed to go under and help will be provided to keep that from happening to most non-political individuals. Unfortunately, being right on one thing does not make an electable person out of a partial nutter.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Last edited by fuelair; 10th June 2008 at 08:32 AM. Reason: +just

10th June 2008, 08:50 AM	#16
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,726	Anybody have a link to the text of the actual 35 counts? Even Kucinich appears to know this isn't going anywhere; there's no mention of it on his website, where the latest news is that he's looking into the suspension of home-equity lines of credit.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th June 2008, 09:02 AM	#17
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,270	Kucinich is correct in his charges, of course. Only politics has prevented impeachment from taking place. From a legal standpoint, the actions of the Bush administration have very clearly sunk to the level at which impeachment is a very obvious and proper step.

10th June 2008, 09:29 AM	#18
KateHL Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,822	I'm going to say this is obviously symbolic ... and I'm going to say I adore him for it. I've always loved Kucinich.
KateHL Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,822

10th June 2008, 03:50 PM	#19
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,320	Originally Posted by KateHW I'm going to say this is obviously symbolic ... and I'm going to say I adore him for it. I've always loved Kucinich. I've always loved Mrs. Kucinich.
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,320	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

10th June 2008, 06:49 PM	#20
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	The chances of any impeachment proceeding going forward make Kucinch's presidential run look viable in comparison. Maybe he could summon those aliens he saw from Shirley MacLaine's porch for extraterrestrial help in the matter. He will need to consult with the other bug wit MacLaine for contact instructions.
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

10th June 2008, 09:59 PM	#21
l0k0 Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 85	Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one. Link Some of these are quite a stretch. For example, Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...
l0k0 Scholar Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 85

10th June 2008, 10:14 PM	#22
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,280	Originally Posted by Beerina Any congresscritter can read whatever the hell he wants into the record. The real question is are these some kind of actual preliminary impeachement documents that have gotten any further than that with respect to any committees? They don't even have to read it. They can order a ~~servant~~ ~~loser yokel patronage appointee~~ clerk to read the entire thing for him, or even just insert it "as if read". Thanks Beerina. I didn't realize that an entry in the Congressional Record could be so irrelevant as to what was actually going on in the various committees and what was scheduled on the calendar by the Speaker. So I found TBs OP to be really startling. But now that I know... Well it was still a good move by Kucinich. Good for him.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,280

11th June 2008, 02:15 AM	#23
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	I'm worried about Tsukasa and remarks like this: Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Woot ! Kucinich has still got it!
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797

11th June 2008, 02:20 AM	#24
Wheezebucket Master Cylinder Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,491	Ah, Kucinich. He drives Cleveland to bankruptcy and then they send him off to Washington to bankrupt everyone else, too! I get the whole not liking Bush thing, I'm right there with you, but just because he also dislikes Bush doesn't make him a great politician.

11th June 2008, 04:19 AM	#25
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 91,482	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this. I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure wont talk about it. News? Olberman did, and actually had a Constitutional Law professor on to discuss it. The opinion, no question there were a number of impeachable offenses in the mix. And the sad fact is according to the law prof., that Congress is duplicitous in letting Bush get away with these abuses of power. They are more worried about the next election than they are about the very important Constitutional principles involved. The Dems, included Obama BTW, care more about their likely gain of both the White House and the Congress so they are afraid to take a chance. I find that rather frightening considering it could set a really bad precedent. And if Bush does any serious damage in the next few months what will that say then? It is also extremely disturbing that the news media and much of the public I assume are not outraged by the things Bush has done. Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is. Here's a link to the Olbermann piece.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th June 2008 at 04:29 AM.

11th June 2008, 04:26 AM	#26
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 91,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. . ... DR Actually, I don't believe that is true. The second thing you posted is what is true. The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there. Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th June 2008 at 04:37 AM.

11th June 2008, 05:26 AM	#27
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by skeptigirl The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there. Perhaps you are right, except for the word proof. The law prof, according to you, points to "evidence." There is evidence in support of some complaints and charges, sure, but a great deal of what is objected to is interpretation, and loophole diving. The entire Gitmo deal hinges upon two differing legal viewpoints of what is or is not within the letter of the law. Look at the case of Scooter Libby, who was found guilty, though of a cover up. There is no reason to think that where these is smoke there isn't fire, so perhaps that is what the professor is alluding to. When it comes to substantive breaking of regs or rules, we find Armitage admitted screwing up in the Plame case, a while after the fact, and was basically left alone. Curious, given the amount of sound and fury over the Plame/Wilson case. The whole thing is swimming in politics. Quote: Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence". Depends on what you are looking for, but let's go back to the original point Dennis is pursuing: impeachment. It is an inherently political process, infested with all that politics brings with it. The impeachment proceedings versus William Jefferson Clinton amply demonstrated that. Let us suppose that the law professor is correct. There is evidence in surplus of all sorts of illegality, high crimes, misdemeanors, skullduggery, coverups, and so on. Why did the Cheney impeachment initiative go nowhere? If the evidence is there, why the inaction in Congress? My point on the burden of proof has to do with a powerful enough batch of evidence that eight Senators cross the aisle ,and vote against the President. Remember, politics. I'd not mix a courtroom setting with a proceeding in Congress. I don't hold lawyers and judges in such low regard. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 11th June 2008 at 05:31 AM.

11th June 2008, 06:14 AM	#28
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is. Funny that you chose to compare a Democrat to a Republican... I mean, you could have said the same thing with Clinton... Oh right.
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Last edited by Pardalis; 11th June 2008 at 06:16 AM.

11th June 2008, 06:18 AM	#29
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,837	Originally Posted by l0k0 Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one. Link Some of these are quite a stretch. For example, Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth... Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.
JEROME DA GNOME Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,837

11th June 2008, 06:32 AM	#30
ImaginalDisc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,219	Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances. That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained.

11th June 2008, 06:47 AM	#31
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained. Which is why the checks and balances model includes the third party, the Supreme Court, as the honest broker when the other two branches get into a dispute over the Constitutionality of one thing or another. It is also why impeachment is a venue for removing criminal and illegal activity in the executive branch. Think for a moment here, Jerome is on the right track. Congress puts a law together. President vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto. Executive refuses to execute. What next? Charges. Into court. The court rules. One of the two sides is deemed to be correct, or more Constitutionally correct. It is not correct to assume that the legislative branch is by default and position correct. It could be ruled either way, depending upon the case. What the executive would be doing in that case is challenging the legislative body: oh, you say it's Constitutional? Well, I'm calling your bluff, off to court we go. Checks and balances in action. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 11th June 2008 at 06:49 AM.

11th June 2008, 06:49 AM	#32
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by l0k0 Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one. Link Some of these are quite a stretch. For example, Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth... Yeah, I skimmed through it and I don't think most of them are impeachable. Quote: Article I Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that? Quote: Article II Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression. That one is really contrived. First of all I don't think the 9/11 attacks were conflated. How can you measure how an event is being conflated beyond its scope anyway? Also, I don't think they've ever said that Saddam was behind 9/11, but put him in the context of possible attacks of the same nature, which is not far fetched. Some of them are just bizarre: Quote: Article IX Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor. ? Quote: Article XXXV Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/grou...erhealthissues I guess the twoofers got to him. Why doesn't he blame AQ for this one, aren't they the ones who made the buildings come down in the first place?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Last edited by Pardalis; 11th June 2008 at 06:53 AM.

11th June 2008, 07:03 AM	#33
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,640	Originally Posted by l0k0 Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one. Link Some of these are quite a stretch. For example, Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not. If it happened before the Patriot Act was passed, then it doesn't matter.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

11th June 2008, 07:44 AM	#34
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by Pardalis Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that? But it's secret! So secret!
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797

11th June 2008, 07:46 AM	#35
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda But it's secret! So secret! Like a secret hand shake?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Last edited by Pardalis; 11th June 2008 at 07:47 AM.