What are the Charges?

[RetiredGySgt]

We have a few People on this board demanding Impeachment. One of them even admits there are no specific charges but rather they want to Impeach to " investigate" the President.

Impeachment REQUIRES that the House specify SPECIFIC charges against the Person to be impeached and that the Senate act as a court and determine the guilt or innocence on those charges. ( there is no provision for "investigating" in the process)

So all you supporters of Impeachment, here is your chance... Provide a list of the CHARGES against Bush, against Cheney, against whom ever it is you think should be impeached.

 

[ReillyT]

We have a few People on this board demanding Impeachment. One of them even admits there are no specific charges but rather they want to Impeach to " investigate" the President.

Impeachment REQUIRES that the House specify SPECIFIC charges against the Person to be impeached and that the Senate act as a court and determine the guilt or innocence on those charges. ( there is no provision for "investigating" in the process)

So all you supporters of Impeachment, here is your chance... Provide a list of the CHARGES against Bush, against Cheney, against whom ever it is you think should be impeached.

I don't think they should be impeached, although I do think there are grounds.

Primarily, I would base it upon the NSA wiretapping program that pretty clearly violates the 4th Amendment and an act of Congress (the FISA). In fact, the violation seems so obvious that I think one would have to say that the Adminstration knew they were violating the Constitution and chose to do it anyway.

That said, I don't think they should be impeached.

 

[Vintij]

I don't think they should be impeached, although I do think there are grounds.

Primarily, I would base it upon the NSA wiretapping program that pretty clearly violates the 4th Amendment and an act of Congress (the FISA). In fact, the violation seems so obvious that I think one would have to say that the Adminstration knew they were violating the Constitution and chose to do it anyway.

That said, I don't think they should be impeached.

You got it, the warrentless wiretapping pogram that does not follow the guidlines of the FISA would be the only legitimate chance at impeaching anyone from this administration. Though this case was already dismissed (ACLU v. NSA) In june of this year, it will resurface because of a conflict of interest with the ruling judge on the case, who happen to be a member of the ACLU. I guess she forgot to tell everyone?

Plus there are many civil suits, claiming that civilians are being tapped who have no relation to foreign affairs (which is what the administration said this program would souly focus on). I still dont think there is enough evidence to impeach the president though, he has given himself enough power to classify his lunch menu in the white house. He may be a suspicious bastard, but there is nothing we can really do without congress taking some of that power away.

 

[ReillyT]

You got it, the warrentless wiretapping pogram that does not follow the guidlines of the FISA would be the only legitimate chance at impeaching anyone from this administration. Though this case was already dismissed (ACLU v. NSA) In june of this year, it will resurface because of a conflict of interest with the ruling judge on the case, who happen to be a member of the ACLU. I guess she forgot to tell everyone?

Plus there are many civil suits, claiming that civilians are being tapped who have no relation to foreign affairs (which is what the administration said this program would souly focus on. I still dont think there is enough evidence to impeach the president though, he has given himself enough power to classify his lunch menu in the white house. He may be a suspicious bastard, but there is nothing we can really do.

It is a different thing. The plaintiffs in the civil suits are out of luck because the specifics of any of the wiretaps are national security secrets. No plaintiff has the means to demonstrate that their phone was actually tapped, so no plaintiff can demonstrate standing to sue.

However, the existence of the NSA program is no longer in dispute, and Gonzalez has admitted its existence. I think that should be sufficient grounds for impeachment proceedings. We don't need to know whose calls were specifically monitored to demonstrate a violation of the 4th Amendment and the FISA.

Once again, I don't believe articles of impeachment should be brought on this basis, although I do think the Administration clearly and knowingly violated the Constitution (and FISA), and that this would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Except for the pesky little fact that the "wiretaps" were all on incoming foreign calls and outgoing calls to foreign numbers that were already known to be related to terrorists, But hey don't let pesky little facts that foreigners are not covered by the Constitution bother you. Or the fact that if a citizen or legal resident were caught incriminating themselves on said tapes it could never be used in court. Thus no violation of anyones rights.

 

[ReillyT]

Except for the pesky little fact that the "wiretaps" were all on incoming foreign calls and outgoing calls to foreign numbers that were already known to be related to terrorists, But hey don't let pesky little facts that foreigners are not covered by the Constitution bother you. Or the fact that if a citizen or legal resident were caught incriminating themselves on said tapes it could never be used in court. Thus no violation of anyones rights.

It doesn't matter who the calls were coming from or going to. The search (wiretap) itself is illegal. Perhaps if you were to know that the calls were going to/ coming from terrorists, that might be sufficient grounds for a warrant, but that does not excuse you from actually getting the warrant.

The persons in the United States making or receiving the calls were citizens and residents. It doesn't matter that the person on the other end is a foreigner.

That is not true. Just because evidence from an illegal search cannot be used against the party in court doesn't mean that the search itself was not illegal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It doesn't matter who the calls were coming from or going to. The search (wiretap) itself is illegal. Perhaps if you were to know that the calls were going to/ coming from terrorists, that might be sufficient grounds for a warrant, but that does not excuse you from actually getting the warrant.

The persons in the United States making or receiving the calls were citizens and residents. It doesn't matter that the person on the other end is a foreigner.

That is not true. Just because evidence from an illegal search cannot be used against the party in court doesn't mean that the search itself was not illegal.

And there are those that disagree with you.

 

[ReillyT]

And there are those that disagree with you.

That was a brilliant piece of argument. You asked what the charges for impeaching Bush might consist of, and I gave you one (although I don't favor impeachment).

Why aren't you thanking me?

 

[Paulie]

Sarge, how can you condone the fact that Bush and Cheney have banned anyone in their circle of knowledge, including themselves, from submitting to subpeonas and testifying to congress?

What are they so afraid of congress hearing from these people?

Maybe if some of these people were allowed to testify, there would be some new information we haven't yet heard...wouldn't you like to hear from the people directly involved with the people who so many American's feel should be impeached? Maybe they have some information that could lead to possible charges being filed! Who the fuck knows!

If someone were accused of shooting someone else to death, but was not yet charged, and they blatantly prohibited a potential witness, via coercision, to not talk to police investigators, that would make that person look extremely guilty...what do you have to hide if you are innocent?

I'd say that blatant disregard for congress is a damn good place to start filing charges.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sarge, how can you condone the fact that Bush and Cheney have banned anyone in their circle of knowledge, including themselves, from submitting to subpeonas and testifying to congress?

What are they so afraid of congress hearing from these people?

Maybe if some of these people were allowed to testify, there would be some new information we haven't yet heard...wouldn't you like to hear from the people directly involved with the people who so many American's feel should be impeached? Maybe they have some information that could lead to possible charges being filed! Who the fuck knows!

If someone were accused of shooting someone else to death, but was not yet charged, and they blatantly prohibited a potential witness, via coercision, to not talk to police investigators, that would make that person look extremely guilty...what do you have to hide if you are innocent?

I'd say that blatant disregard for congress is a damn good place to start filing charges.

Strawman. The Congress is on a witch hunt, facts do not matter, Libby proves that perfectly. The three branches of Government are independent and have seperate powers. Bush is simply enforcing that fact. He has offered on more than one occasion to allow everyone to tell Congress anything they want, so long as the threat of perjury is removed, and with good cause, Libby got railroaded by just that function.

He has NOT said Congress could not use the information gained as required, he has asserted the rights and powers of the Executive Branch over the legislative Branch, and he has done so because of crap like the conviction of Libby. Libby talked and for his trouble he was charged and convicted of perjury.

But hey keep believeing what you want. I am waiting for some charges to Impeach on, seems your fresh out.

 

[manu1959]

I'd say that blatant disregard for congress is a damn good place to start filing charges.

any particular reason congress can't be impeached for a blatant disregard of the president? and when did a "veto" become against the law?

also seems like clinton may...or may not have done the same thing.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton+wiretapping

 

[MassageGirl]

This thread is definately cracking me up.

Retired Gunny Sgt, dude- I am a veteran also, but come on.. You have to remember why you took your oath. We serve as a way to protect citizens freedoms,constitutional or otherwise. Some rights, as we all know, arent mentioned in the constitution. With the advancement of modern technology, there are loads of things that are certainly not in there, like wiretaps, etc.

Sure the *majority* of calls were to or from a foreign entity, but what about people like us, who sit here in our little who gives a crud message board rooms, and talk about the president, bombs, nuclear warheads, etc.. by the way, just by sending this message over the beautifully massive world wide web, I just got "flagged" by some huge federal computer,to be possibly reviewed later.

There is a right to privacy, and mine shouldnt be taken just because I said something (even sarcastically) using the words "president" "nuke" or "bomb" on the flipping net, on the phone or otherwise. Furthermore, "they" wouldnt know where those calls were being made or coming from if they didnt already have the taps in place, so whats the point in even arguing that its even the slightest bit legal or ethical?

Last but not least, to tell ya why else I think this thread is so humorous, its because of the simple fact that there is CURRENTLY a revolution in progress. Even though on this little whogivesacrap message board, its just between a retired gsgt and some angry democrats, that IS the people VS the US of A.

Impeach,assassinate, whatever, just get that F-ing bozo out of the oval office,please. lol!!!

 

[dilloduck]

This thread is definately cracking me up.

Retired Gunny Sgt, dude- I am a veteran also, but come on.. You have to remember why you took your oath. We serve as a way to protect citizens freedoms,constitutional or otherwise. Some rights, as we all know, arent mentioned in the constitution. With the advancement of modern technology, there are loads of things that are certainly not in there, like wiretaps, etc.

Sure the *majority* of calls were to or from a foreign entity, but what about people like us, who sit here in our little who gives a crud message board rooms, and talk about the president, bombs, nuclear warheads, etc.. by the way, just by sending this message over the beautifully massive world wide web, I just got "flagged" by some huge federal computer,to be possibly reviewed later.

There is a right to privacy, and mine shouldnt be taken just because I said something (even sarcastically) using the words "president" "nuke" or "bomb" on the flipping net, on the phone or otherwise. Furthermore, "they" wouldnt know where those calls were being made or coming from if they didnt already have the taps in place, so whats the point in even arguing that its even the slightest bit legal or ethical?

Last but not least, to tell ya why else I think this thread is so humorous, its because of the simple fact that there is CURRENTLY a revolution in progress. Even though on this little whogivesacrap message board, its just between a retired gsgt and some angry democrats, that IS the people VS the US of A.

Impeach,assassinate, whatever, just get that F-ing bozo out of the oval office,please. lol!!!

A revolution ?

 

[MassageGirl]

Heck yeah!! Dont you know what revolution means? I tell ya, its been going on since the major portion of the war ended. We still "shed the blood of tyrants and dictators" in order to "refresh the tree of liberty." Happens every single day. Do you dare to question this??? I can easily provide proof. For now, here is this.. and in case you are interested, just google "assasination", or "cop killed" or "supreme court rules in favor of" etc... Just recently a man won a battle with the supreme court regarding wearing a military uniform, even though he wasnt in the military. It was found to be well within his first amendment right (the freedom of expression) to wear just whatever attire, military or otherwise. See, thats all part of this:::



Revolution \Rev`o*lu"tion\, n. [F. r['e]volution, L. revolutio. See Revolve.]

1. The act of revolving, or turning round on an axis or a center; the motion of a body round a fixed point or line; rotation; as, the revolution of a wheel, of a top, of the earth on its axis, etc.

2. Return to a point before occupied, or to a point relatively the same; a rolling back; return; as, revolution in an ellipse or spiral.

That fear Comes thundering back, with dreadful revolution, On my defenseless head. --Milton.

3. The space measured by the regular return of a revolving body; the period made by the regular recurrence of a measure of time, or by a succession of similar events. ``The short revolution of a day.'' --Dryden.

4. (Astron.) The motion of any body, as a planet or satellite, in a curved line or orbit, until it returns to the same point again, or to a point relatively the same; -- designated as the annual, anomalistic, nodical, sidereal, or tropical revolution, according as the point of return or completion has a fixed relation to the year, the anomaly, the nodes, the stars, or the tropics; as, the revolution of the earth about the sun; the revolution of the moon about the earth.

Note: The term is sometimes applied in astronomy to the motion of a single body, as a planet, about its own axis, but this motion is usually called rotation.

5. (Geom.) The motion of a point, line, or surface about a point or line as its center or axis, in such a manner that a moving point generates a curve, a moving line a surface (called a surface of revolution), and a moving surface a solid (called a solid of revolution); as, the revolution of a right-angled triangle about one of its sides generates a cone; the revolution of a semicircle about the diameter generates a sphere.

6. A total or radical change; as, a revolution in one's circumstances or way of living.

The ability . . . of the great philosopher speedily produced a complete revolution throughout the department. --Macaulay.

7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

The violence of revolutions is generally proportioned to the degree of the maladministration which has produced them. --Macaulay.

Note: When used without qualifying terms, the word is often applied specifically, by way of eminence, to: (a) The English Revolution in 1689, when William of Orange and Mary became the reigning sovereigns, in place of James II. (b) The American Revolution, beginning in 1775, by which the English colonies, since known as the United States, secured their independence. (c) The revolution in France in 1789, commonly called the French Revolution, the subsequent revolutions in that country being designated by their dates, as the Revolution of 1830, of 1848, etc.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

 

[dilloduck]

Heck yeah!! Dont you know what revolution means? I tell ya, its been going on since the major portion of the war ended. We still "shed the blood of tyrants and dictators" in order to "refresh the tree of liberty." Happens every single day. Do you dare to question this??? I can easily provide proof. For now, here is this.. and in case you are interested, just google "assasination", or "cop killed" or "supreme court rules in favor of" etc... Just recently a man won a battle with the supreme court regarding wearing a military uniform, even though he wasnt in the military. It was found to be well within his first amendment right (the freedom of expression) to wear just whatever attire, military or otherwise. See, thats all part of this:::



Revolution \Rev`o*lu"tion\, n. [F. r['e]volution, L. revolutio. See Revolve.]

1. The act of revolving, or turning round on an axis or a center; the motion of a body round a fixed point or line; rotation; as, the revolution of a wheel, of a top, of the earth on its axis, etc.

2. Return to a point before occupied, or to a point relatively the same; a rolling back; return; as, revolution in an ellipse or spiral.

That fear Comes thundering back, with dreadful revolution, On my defenseless head. --Milton.

3. The space measured by the regular return of a revolving body; the period made by the regular recurrence of a measure of time, or by a succession of similar events. ``The short revolution of a day.'' --Dryden.

4. (Astron.) The motion of any body, as a planet or satellite, in a curved line or orbit, until it returns to the same point again, or to a point relatively the same; -- designated as the annual, anomalistic, nodical, sidereal, or tropical revolution, according as the point of return or completion has a fixed relation to the year, the anomaly, the nodes, the stars, or the tropics; as, the revolution of the earth about the sun; the revolution of the moon about the earth.

Note: The term is sometimes applied in astronomy to the motion of a single body, as a planet, about its own axis, but this motion is usually called rotation.

5. (Geom.) The motion of a point, line, or surface about a point or line as its center or axis, in such a manner that a moving point generates a curve, a moving line a surface (called a surface of revolution), and a moving surface a solid (called a solid of revolution); as, the revolution of a right-angled triangle about one of its sides generates a cone; the revolution of a semicircle about the diameter generates a sphere.

6. A total or radical change; as, a revolution in one's circumstances or way of living.

The ability . . . of the great philosopher speedily produced a complete revolution throughout the department. --Macaulay.

7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.

The violence of revolutions is generally proportioned to the degree of the maladministration which has produced them. --Macaulay.

Note: When used without qualifying terms, the word is often applied specifically, by way of eminence, to: (a) The English Revolution in 1689, when William of Orange and Mary became the reigning sovereigns, in place of James II. (b) The American Revolution, beginning in 1775, by which the English colonies, since known as the United States, secured their independence. (c) The revolution in France in 1789, commonly called the French Revolution, the subsequent revolutions in that country being designated by their dates, as the Revolution of 1830, of 1848, etc.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Amazing--I guess I better get a lawyer and join this "revolution".

(what is it we are for anyway?)

 

[Superlative]

I hereby charge George H.W. Bush the leader of the greatest nation on the planet, with the high crime of being ignorant and brutalizing the english language.

My evidence is as follows.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream."

"I know human being and fish can co-exist peacefully."

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas"

"They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the Commander-in-Chief, too."

 

[Mr. P]

Amazing--I guess I better get a lawyer and join this "revolution".

(what is it we are for anyway?)

I think we be against "THE MAN", regardless of who or what that may be. This one is really !

 

[MassageGirl]

I think we be against "THE MAN", regardless of who or what that may be. This one is really !

Awww how sweet!

(says under breath)
Yet another one with a false sense of security.

Arent you aware of what the revolution entailed? What it was about? Dont you know that youre spending about $0.30 on taxes every time you buy a LOAF OF BREAD????

Gas stations, owned by oil tycoons, who happen to be the ones leading this country, are charging us between 2.60 and 3.60 for a gallon of gasoline, and instead of their profits plateauing, they are still seeing record profits???

Let me tell you something- our founding fathers were more than just a bunch of guys who wrote up and signed some documents. They were the leaders in the "high treason" movement. That high treason is what it TOOK to EARN their freedom back. Freedom was not a GIFT. It is something THEY WORKED FOR. Its something that MANY people died in order to achieve. If all you want to remember is that all that happened was the declaration was signed and poof! by magic somehow, we had all sorts of freedoms, yeah you go ahead and be a slave to the state and believe that all you want. It takes a big man to lay down and take it up the arse. It takes a bigger man to stand up and deck the dude whos been raping him his whole life.

Peace of mind is for losers!!!

I dont WANT peace of mind. If that means I have to fight back, then I will gladly do it. I would rather walk outside and feel unsafe, than to hide inside because I am not free. Call me crazy all you want, but I will always be free. You on the other hand, will always have the bigger guys ding dong up your rectum!!! Hey we all have the right to ake our own choices...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Awww how sweet!

(says under breath)
Yet another one with a false sense of security.

Arent you aware of what the revolution entailed? What it was about? Dont you know that youre spending about $0.30 on taxes every time you buy a LOAF OF BREAD????

Gas stations, owned by oil tycoons, who happen to be the ones leading this country, are charging us between 2.60 and 3.60 for a gallon of gasoline, and instead of their profits plateauing, they are still seeing record profits???

Let me tell you something- our founding fathers were more than just a bunch of guys who wrote up and signed some documents. They were the leaders in the "high treason" movement. That high treason is what it TOOK to EARN their freedom back. Freedom was not a GIFT. It is something THEY WORKED FOR. Its something that MANY people died in order to achieve. If all you want to remember is that all that happened was the declaration was signed and poof! by magic somehow, we had all sorts of freedoms, yeah you go ahead and be a slave to the state and believe that all you want. It takes a big man to lay down and take it up the arse. It takes a bigger man to stand up and deck the dude whos been raping him his whole life.

Peace of mind is for losers!!!

I dont WANT peace of mind. If that means I have to fight back, then I will gladly do it. I would rather walk outside and feel unsafe, than to hide inside because I am not free. Call me crazy all you want, but I will always be free. You on the other hand, will always have the bigger guys ding dong up your rectum!!! Hey we all have the right to ake our own choices...

Liberals feel a need to revolt? Please do. Arm yourself and attack us ignorant redneck hillbilly retarded Conservatives. I know where my money is on THAT fight. You have failed miserably at ruling by consensus and so all thats left for you is to kill us. Go ahead try.

 

[Mr. P]

Awww how sweet!

(says under breath)
Yet another one with a false sense of security.

Arent you aware of what the revolution entailed? What it was about? Dont you know that youre spending about $0.30 on taxes every time you buy a LOAF OF BREAD????

Gas stations, owned by oil tycoons, who happen to be the ones leading this country, are charging us between 2.60 and 3.60 for a gallon of gasoline, and instead of their profits plateauing, they are still seeing record profits???

Let me tell you something- our founding fathers were more than just a bunch of guys who wrote up and signed some documents. They were the leaders in the "high treason" movement. That high treason is what it TOOK to EARN their freedom back. Freedom was not a GIFT. It is something THEY WORKED FOR. Its something that MANY people died in order to achieve. If all you want to remember is that all that happened was the declaration was signed and poof! by magic somehow, we had all sorts of freedoms, yeah you go ahead and be a slave to the state and believe that all you want. It takes a big man to lay down and take it up the arse. It takes a bigger man to stand up and deck the dude whos been raping him his whole life.

Peace of mind is for losers!!!

I dont WANT peace of mind. If that means I have to fight back, then I will gladly do it. I would rather walk outside and feel unsafe, than to hide inside because I am not free. Call me crazy all you want, but I will always be free. You on the other hand, will always have the bigger guys ding dong up your rectum!!! Hey we all have the right to ake our own choices...

Same ole same ole BS..and Get some substance.