Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

54 Reasons to Impeach, Convict and Remove George W. Bush from office.

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
republicansarewhores Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:03 PM
Original message
54 Reasons to Impeach, Convict and Remove George W. Bush from office.
Remember the Pentagon's "Iraqi Most Wanted" Cards?

The tables have turned... courtesy of www.impeachbushcards.com

HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH YET? WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE???!!!

Copy 'em and pass them around... send them to Congress...

FORCE THEM TO PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE!

RAW














Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. This time we have 'em all up our sleeves.
NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildhorses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. proud to be the fifth ---off to the greatest page with you
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. This deserves a bookmark. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chknltl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kicked and recommended.
I strongly feel there are a great many critical issues facing our nation and our planet. All efforts by Americans to address these critical issues must have those efforts attenuated through the bush administration. Impeachment is far faster than waiting for bushco to fade away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. 54 reasons to impeach Bush/ VP
You have almost as many reasons to impeach as hey have excuses not to impeach the President Bush an V.P
1. Too little time left in the administration, lets just hold our collective noses until they go away.
2. Clinton was just impeached, didn't we just do this
3. We are at war, we cant look bad to the rest of the world, we will look weak, we must show our troops support, we must show a united face to the world
4. The Dem. Will look like the bad guys (?), the media will attack the Dead and make them the bad guys
5. We have too many other things on the table,the people expect us to be about the business of government, we need to get to work on the.....
6. It would be bad for the elections, let the Rep. deal with their rats or sink with the ship,
7. it is too close to the elections, we don't know how this would all play out, how would this impact the elections, we don't want this to take up all the media time from the new guys we have running in our D/R party
8.What if the terrorists attack while we are doing this?
9. We can't do Bush with out Chaney he's the nut
10 we can't do Chaney and leave Bush he's an idiot
11.Then there will be a Pelosi president?
12.It's bad for the country because... ( my personal favorite)
13. The ______ must come first


Oh sorry I only have enough for one suit.. But then what has reason got to do it any of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Mail this to all those assholes who mail you crap - really! Do it! Mail
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 11:12 PM by babylonsister
this! Here's the link:

http://www.impeachbushcards.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
republicansarewhores Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Every e-mail solicitation I get from a Democratic fundraising group...
I am going to reply with the link to these cards lol.

RAW

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. WOW! k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sweet. Must have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
10. very nice. Where can I buy a set?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
republicansarewhores Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. The link to get a deck is on the cards...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
12. K&R&G(etting some)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. The cheney joker is scary. We could use a Cristopher Walken with psychic powers now
to find out what dick vader has planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. Most of these aren't actually crimes by any legal definition.
Kyoto, stem cells, a quote, etc., what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

The ones up there that are crimes, however, are great big fat hairy massive monstrous crimes.

This would make an amazing poster. Nice work. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
16. Great list. Recommmended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
17. Kick! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. I just wanted to add this little gem...
that I found when looking for legal requirements for impeachment. It was obviously written in the days of Bill Clinton, but I assume the law, and it's interpretation are the same...
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
republicansarewhores Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yup. The Dems forgot how the neocon bastards twisted things to fit Ken Starr's agenda.
It really does seem like they are suffering from battered wife syndrome...

RAW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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