Conyers says if 3 more congressmen sign onto HR 333, he'll begin Imp. proceedings

[Paulie]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/24962

For those of you who have no clue that there actually is a bill on the floor for impeachment proceedings that Dennis Kucinich drafted (because the Lamestream media doesn't want you thinking about it), John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said if 3 more members sign on, he'll begin the proceedings.

The article I linked to will explain quite clearly how easy it will actually be to get those 3 members.

People, the time is now to act. Call your congress-critters....tell them that as an American citizen representing this country and the majority consensus, you DEMAND that they act accordingly to what the people of this country want.

Do it now, and do it OFTEN.

This is our shot, folks. Let's use it to our utmost advantage.

 

[Truthmatters]

Email your reps folks

 

[Paulie]

email is nice and all, but a phone call will go a lot farther, i think.

I've personally called Conyers and Pelosi many times...didn't talk to them directly of course, but their aides said they would pass the message on.

There's been a few hoaxes lately going around the internet saying that Pelosi was "soliciting" Americans phone calls to her office to get a "tally" on the consensus about impeachment. Even though they were hoaxes (the aides always said that she was NOT soliciting the calls), it still lit a fire under the asses of America to make calls.

Conyers and Pelosi know the pressure that's on them right now. Let's just keep the pressure on.

 

[Ninja]

Bree Walker with the inside scoop

I'll believe it when I see it. I think this is so farcical that I'm going to call Lois Capps tomorrow and ask her to sign on

 

[Truthmatters]

Fred Thompson because one watergate is not enough.

 

[Ninja]

Fred Thompson because one watergate is not enough.

Hey, that's pretty clever. Let's design a shirt on Zazzle.com - I'll buy a couple

And I don't know why you're being so snippy, I said I'd call my congresswoman

 

[Stephanie]

Go ahead..... start impeachment while we have our troops in a war....

It will be a BIG WIN FOR REPUPLICANS IN 2008....

 

[Paulie]

And I don't know why you're being so snippy, I said I'd call my congresswoman

I think this is so farcical that I'm going to call Lois Capps tomorrow and ask her to sign on

That sounds pretty sarcastic and contemptuous to me. Enough to make someone not even take you seriously.

Therefore, I think the snippy comment was warranted.

 

[pegwinn]

Well this sounds better than the fall lineup on TV.

 

[CockySOB]

If Kucinich presses the issue, he's committing career suicide, specifically ending any chance he had of being a viable Democrat candidate for POTUS in 2008. Kinda makes the Hillary Clinton-John Edwards discussion about weeding out the dilettantes from the Democrat candidates a non-issue.

 

[Superlative]

Im very interested in seeing if this goes anywhere.

One can call for impeachment, but finding evidence is an entirely different story.

This administration has rewritten the rules into such a shade of grey that they dont have to worry about any incriminating evidence surfacing.

Anything that does, will fall under an area so ripe with ambigious terminology, open to interpretation, that it will be impossible to decide one way or another of any wrong doing.

Couldnt executive privilege encompass everything?

Did he know?, didnt he know? Not guilty.

 

[CockySOB]

What is truly puzzling is why Kucinich isn't trying to impeach GWB directly. Yes, VPOTUS can be impeached separate from the POTUS, but that would IMO require VPOTUS to have been acted as a private citizen. Cheney's actions cited in HRES 333 IH revolve around his official duties and performance of his office. I don't see how to separate GWB from Cheney in that instance. More specifically, I wouldn't think that such an impeachment of VPOTUS would be viable without the co-operation of POTUS.

IMO this is a political maneuver designed to bring Kucinich and the anti-war/anti-GWB Democrats some time in the media prior to the 2008 election cycle. The worst thing that could happen for the Democrats at-large is if Kucinich manages to push the issue onto the floor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By all means all you leftoids CALL now, get the ball rolling. It is the best thing you can do to ensure you lose in 2008. I am ALL for it.

 

[Care4all]

By all means all you leftoids CALL now, get the ball rolling. It is the best thing you can do to ensure you lose in 2008. I am ALL for it.

It is the Right and Just thing to do, to start investigating, and if deemed appropriate, Impeach.

They, the Democrats, may lose their seats, but this does not negate that it is the Right and Just thing to do imo, for many various reasons that I have stated previously.

I felt it should have been done BEFORE the 2006 elections and that if the Republicans had done this before the election, they may or may not have lost their seats but they certainly would have had a better chance by 2008 in winning the Presidential Election if both Bush and Cheney had been impeached a few years earlier imho.

 

[manu1959]

what are all ya'll going to impeach him for again?

 

[dilloduck]

what are all ya'll going to impeach him for again?

You mean you need a reason other than pure retaliation ?

 

[Stephanie]

Go ahead..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

what are all ya'll going to impeach him for again?

Haven't you been paying attention.... They want to impeach him because he is, well, Bush, isn't that reason enough?

As for Care4all, you do NOT impeach someone to Investigate them. You Impeach them because you have evidence of a crime or misdeed that is serious enough to call for removal from office. In other words you INVESTIGATE , find evidence, then act.

Using your analogy we should just arrest random people off the street and try them for some crime to determine if maybe, possibly, they did what ever we charged them with.

For the slow, the House has to make specific CHARGES when it votes to start Impeachment, they do not get to vote for Impeachment with an article that says, Ok Senate, now Investigate him.

The Senate then has to sit in Judgement of those SPECIFIC charges and determine if they are true, false or worthy of removing the President from office ( since they are to stupid to understand they do not have to remove if they find guilt.)

 

[red states rule]

It is the Right and Just thing to do, to start investigating, and if deemed appropriate, Impeach.

They, the Democrats, may lose their seats, but this does not negate that it is the Right and Just thing to do imo, for many various reasons that I have stated previously.

I felt it should have been done BEFORE the 2006 elections and that if the Republicans had done this before the election, they may or may not have lost their seats but they certainly would have had a better chance by 2008 in winning the Presidential Election if both Bush and Cheney had been impeached a few years earlier imho.

Will there be sleeping cots for this one, too?

And how about bringing in Robert Byrd to sing, "Flowers On The Wall."

 

[Vintij]

what are all ya'll going to impeach him for again?

Well did Clinton lie under oath? Why was he under oath in the first place? Because he was imeached on allegations. Same thing with Bush, he will be impeached on allegation of lying, then he will go under oath and will lie about his knowledge of the connection of Suddam to Al quada. Impeachment is only half the battle, but it opens the door for slip ups like it did for Clinton.

Impeachment is like being indicted.