You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Is Bush's deliberate spying on Americans really an impeachable offense? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:21 AM
Original message
Is Bush's deliberate spying on Americans really an impeachable offense?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 01:21 AM by jsamuel
Bush confessed to crimes on National Radio -- Mirandize and book him.

According to this thread, he broke the law and admitted it. Isn't this an impeachable offense? Otherwise, are we saying the the Executive Branch is not required to follow the laws it is supposed to enforce? If so, then isn't the Executive Branch therefore, superior to all other branches of our government, throwing our government into a constitutional crisis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Is Bush's deliberate spying on Americans really an impeachable offense? jsamuel  Dec-18-05 01:21 AM   #0 
  - IMO, the proceedings should be underway...  fooj   Dec-18-05 01:25 AM   #1 
  - Yes, Bush said he was above the law  Erika   Dec-18-05 01:30 AM   #2 
  - So does that mean  FreedomAngel82   Dec-18-05 06:56 PM   #35 
     - Why didn't CLinton think of it?  kenny blankenship   Dec-18-05 07:05 PM   #39 
  - "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"  AndyTiedye   Dec-18-05 01:46 AM   #3 
  - I don't see how it's impeachable, and yes, the president is somewhat  jobycom   Dec-18-05 01:46 AM   #4 
  - "distinctly political crimes against the state."  jsamuel   Dec-18-05 01:52 AM   #5 
  - No. The state means the government, or the nation as a whole.  jobycom   Dec-18-05 02:12 AM   #12 
     - I wonder if we could make a stronger case if we could show that Bush  bigtree   Dec-18-05 03:32 AM   #21 
        - It's not a question of stronger or weaker, but of type, although  jobycom   Dec-18-05 07:07 AM   #23 
  - Excellent post ...  RoyGBiv   Dec-18-05 02:07 AM   #10 
  - It's not a post I'm happy about  jobycom   Dec-18-05 02:20 AM   #13 
     - I understand that ...  RoyGBiv   Dec-18-05 02:25 AM   #14 
  - Yet a BJ isn't a "distinctly political crime against the state"  LunaC   Dec-18-05 08:39 AM   #25 
  - Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job  jobycom   Dec-18-05 06:58 PM   #36 
     - I understand exactly why Clinton was impeached.,  LunaC   Dec-18-05 09:49 PM   #47 
  - It is a "distinctly political crime against the state."  TahitiNut   Dec-18-05 03:35 PM   #27 
  - It's not.  jobycom   Dec-18-05 06:53 PM   #33 
  - WRONG!!  ddeclue   Dec-18-05 03:37 PM   #29 
  - Sorry, but you're wrong. The Constitution trumps any other law  jobycom   Dec-18-05 06:48 PM   #32 
     - Duh...sorry but you're STILL wrong  ddeclue   Dec-18-05 07:09 PM   #40 
     - It's not "exactly what they were preparing articles" against Nixon for  jobycom   Dec-18-05 07:44 PM   #41 
        - It IS a crime against the state.  ddeclue   Dec-18-05 07:58 PM   #43 
           - Stormy weather has a chilling effect on democracy, but it's not  jobycom   Dec-18-05 08:13 PM   #44 
              - In that sense, the "state" is "The People"  TahitiNut   Dec-18-05 09:11 PM   #45 
     - jobycom  davekriss   Dec-18-05 09:44 PM   #46 
  - NOBODY  FreedomAngel82   Dec-18-05 06:59 PM   #37 
     - It's not a question of whether he broke the law  jobycom   Dec-18-05 07:03 PM   #38 
  - He took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution  proud2Blib   Dec-18-05 01:52 AM   #6 
  - He ordered the NSA to break the law.  beam me up scottie   Dec-18-05 01:52 AM   #7 
  - Did the Bush Administration go around the FISA court process?  aint_no_life_nowhere   Dec-18-05 02:44 AM   #16 
     - He bypassed the law passed in 1978 requiring him to get approval.  beam me up scottie   Dec-18-05 03:02 AM   #17 
  - Yes  Swamp Rat   Dec-18-05 01:55 AM   #8 
  - No it isn't....  mechanical mandible   Dec-18-05 02:06 AM   #9 
     - no, from what I understand, you are wrong  jsamuel   Dec-18-05 02:09 AM   #11 
  - I like that  NoMoreMyths   Dec-18-05 02:34 AM   #15 
  - this is what I've been trying to get a hold of, the reasoning  bigtree   Dec-18-05 03:35 AM   #22 
  - Wonderfully said  Solly Mack   Dec-18-05 03:39 PM   #30 
  - Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.  ddeclue   Dec-18-05 03:21 AM   #18 
  - It reminds me of Colonel Jessup in a Few Good Men.  ddeclue   Dec-18-05 03:24 AM   #19 
  - yeah, good reference  jsamuel   Dec-18-05 03:10 PM   #26 
  - Clinton got impeached for getting a hummer.  Jamastiene   Dec-18-05 03:29 AM   #20 
  - Good points, but as I'm sure you know, techically Clinton was impeached  jobycom   Dec-18-05 07:30 AM   #24 
  - Yes, it is.  Heaven and Earth   Dec-18-05 03:36 PM   #28 
  - HELL! This story will be  BenDavid   Dec-18-05 03:40 PM   #31 
  - Yes  FreedomAngel82   Dec-18-05 06:56 PM   #34 
  - If He Broke the Law & Admitted It...  tlsmith1963   Dec-18-05 07:47 PM   #42 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC