Bush can NEVER be impeached! they let the law sunset in 1999 effing fools

[ElsewheresDaughter]

this is why bush*turd does what ever he feels like
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october01/civil4.html

One example of the use of a sunset provision for just such purpose was the Independent Counsel law passed in the wake of Watergate. There was considerable fear that the law would avoid some political conflicts of interest, but also invite prosecutions that might be politically motivated or aimed at matters that prosecutors would not generally pursue. There was some concern as well that the law's structure might render it unconstitutional under the separation of powers. The law was enacted with 5 year sunset provisions. From the beginning, Attorneys General complained of its misuse, but since it was mostly Republicans who were howling, the law was reauthorized several times by Democratic Congress' that didn't see the mischief in the law until President Clinton's impeachment. When the law came up for review right before the end of President Clinton's term, virtually everyone agreed it was time for the sun to set on the law, and it hasn't been re-enacted.

[IronLionZion]

1. So that's why no brave Democrats have tried it yet

I was sure Kucinich or Dean or someone would have called for it.

Looks like we'll just have to beat * in the election.

[DS1]

2. An Independent Counsel led to the last impeachment, but isn't required

[Tina H]

3. This is a great lesson!

It is funny how often partisan politics come back to bite ya

[Gman]

4. It was time for the law to die anyway

It's not like Asscrack would appoint a special prosecutor for anything.

[ijk]

5. independent prosecutors

Right, nothing to do with impeachment. The independent counsel bill was a rotten law - it was set up to practically beg for Ken Starr-style abuses. It's a pity, though, that there was no hope of writing a better version in '99; the basic function is an important one.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. I don't think an independent counsel is actually necessary

for impeachment.

If a vote of the Senate can be arranged somehow, you've got an impeachment, according to the Constitution, as far as I know.

Back in the nineteenth century, they managed to impeach Andrew Johnson without an independent counsel.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. was taught that impeachment clause in the Constitution was meant only for

Justices/judges to be impeached not presidents...that's what the lying teacher taught in high school...the incompetent turd

[KharmaTrain]

7. Even If The IC Were Still Around, No Cigar

With the GOOP in control of both houses...even when the Democrats had a one vote "majority", there was never the votes to appoint an Independent Counsul. Even, by some fluke, there were the votes, it'd never be funded anywhere near what the Clenis inquisistion was and this regime would stonewall in classic fashion.

The laws broken by this regime require criminal investigation, including a good look by the World Court in the Hague. The best way, yet no one has the stones to do it...would be a civil suit like the ones Larry "The Scary" Klayman used to throw...dragging everyone and anyone who knew the Clintons in front of a grand jury and compell testimony. But are Democrats that vindictive?

History will be the final judge on this regime and we already are starting to see the chapter will be written "Worst pResident Ever"

[Ernesto]

10. Agreed, there is no chance of such a thing happening.

[TexasProgresive]

8. The only way impeachment proceedings will

begin against * is if there is a shift in the people and the demand becomes so loud that the repugnants in the house and senate will have no choice but to begin. Then * will resign and Cheney will pardon him. When the appoint a "clean" VP Cheney will resign for health issues and the newbie will pardon him. sorta a double replay of Tricky Dick.

[never_get_over_it]

11. Folks this impeachment question

is really moot unless the idiot is elected in November. Independent council is not necessary for impeachment of the President - or anyone else. The Constitution states that a President can be impeached and removed for high crimes, misdemenors and treason. High crimes and misdemenors are in the eye of the beholder - meaning anything the House can muster the votes for can be considered a high crime or misdemenors.

The reason Bush will not be impeached is that the House of Representative who is responsible for impeachment is run by the repunks. They will never bring up chrges against Bush.... and no Dem will do it because it would go no where - and would be politically damaging to the Dem who attempted it. If the President is impeached by the House which means charges are brought - the Senate then "tries" the President and then can only convict with a 2/3rds vote which means 67 Senators would have to vote to remove - that isn't going to happen either....

Even if a member of the House wanted to do this - it takes time and with the election only six months away this is not going to happen.

[neebob]

12. And even if it did

He would just refuse to leave office or Cheney would take his place. Never mind what it would take to get there. That's why I don't understand people wanting him impeached. Personally, I want him in prison, but I don't believe it will ever happen.

[never_get_over_it]

13. Oh believe me

you can't imagine the number of times a week I say I hope I live long enough to see this freak and all his friends in prison.....