Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Obama on the verge of committing impeachable offenses by not prosecuting the tyranny of Bushco?

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
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:10 PM
Original message
Poll question: Is Obama on the verge of committing impeachable offenses by not prosecuting the tyranny of Bushco?
9/11

During the run up to the Iraq war, fabrication and falsification of "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq, Saddam's supposed links to Al Qaeda, Iraq's supposed links to 9/11. All of which proved false. This false evidence led to the authorization of the Iraq War Resolution.

Torture

Gitmo and Abu Gharib

Don Siegelman

US Attorney firings

And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the shame known as the Bush Presidency.

Are Democrats involved in potential prosecution? Is that why Obama and Holder are dragging their feet?

We are a nation of laws no more. I'm tired of watching Pols self-regulate which enables them to live above the law. I'm not leveling that accusation at Obama, yet. But to me, it's starting to look like Obama is protecting certain Pols from prosecution. Why?

Bushco perpetrated some of the worst crimes in American history. To cover it up or fail to prosecute might be an equally offensive crime.

I still support my President and realize the gigantic shit sandwich that he inherited from Bushco. And I fully realize the complexity of investigating Bushco and that Holder CANNOT fuck this investigation up or the charges will be dropped. But the evidence against Bushco is so fucking blatant that a first grader knows that our government committed horrendous violations of federal and international law.

To cover it up or fail to prosecute is impeachable if indictments don't come down soon. To me, "soon" is by the end of this year.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. I voted No. First of all, I was never deluded into thinking
that Obama would be using resources to prosecute Bush. Bush is gone. I just don't see it happening. I knew Obama would have his hands full just keeping us above water.

And I don't know how anyone would think it would be a "crime" that is absurd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Not investigating torture is a crime. The only question really
is if it's impeachable and that's a different matter. Probably not, literally, and certainly not politically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Good luck prosecuting Obama for this "crime".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. The torture convention has a mandate and a time sensitive one.
Bush was already warned by the UN. It's the law of the United States as well. Technically, anyone who either participated as Bush did or who KNOWS about it and does nothing can be taken to the ICC.

And I was responding to the legality, not to anything else.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
104. Look, Obama is still doing what Bush did. There are still
soldiers in Iraq, are there not? How long does this go on before he becomes culpable for that? I just don't see it happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #104
112. Right. And that's different than dismissing out of hand
the liability Obama incurs if he chooses not to investigate / prosecute torture.

I'm all for being realistic. The reality is, the president is in violation of US and international law if he doesn't move this. At least let's be honest about what is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Purposely failing to prosecute high crimes is a violation of Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Well then are you prepared to launch a movement to
impeach Obama? Over Idiot Bush??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. "failing to prosecute high crimes" Here is the only mention of "high crimes" in the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It says nothing about the President prosecuting anyone. The only time "high crimes" is mentioned is in the context of removing the President for committing, then being convicted of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. I agree with you. It was never going to happen, not with any of our Dems, even DK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #63
105. Exactly. I was quite frankly, surprised at those that
thought it would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
133. Why do we have laws, then?
Law enforcement officials always have 'their hands full' in this country and most of them have fewer resources to prosecute criminals with than the president does.

HE doesn't have to do anything, that is the job of his DOJ. But who he chooses to run the DOJ and what he does about left-over Bush appointees and who is other appointees are/will be says a lot about what he thinks not to mention his constant repeating of the ridiculous notion that there is some kind of Statute of Limitations on war crimes, and therefore we ought to all move forward. Glad he wasn't a victim of Bush's crimes, lost a child, watched helplessly as a loved one was tortured and then refused an opportunity to get justice. Really, I am and I wish there had been no victims.

If the government has no time to prosecute crimes, then let's apply the same standards to over-worked DAs across the country. If the crime happened yesterday, let them 'move on' as their hands are full running for office where they can do more for the country, or whatever else our elected officials are so busy with.

The bottom line is that enormous criminal activity took place over the past eight years. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost + that many more changed forever. If crimes of that magnitude are not dealt with by the US, if you are saying that we are so inept that we cannot use the branches of government set up for this very purpose, then justice will have to come from outside this country. How pathetic and yet we have time to point fingers at other countries and demand that THEY find the will and the time to prosecute their criminals!

Please, that excuse is an insult to intelligent people and it is not selling, anywhere. Spain has the legal authority to prosecute some of our war criminals. The judge overseeing these cases gave the Obama administration time to do it themselves. They have already named six perpetrators for crimes violating the laws against torture.

So far, it looks like victims of US government crimes under Bush, will have to look to others to get some justice for the crimes endured by them and their families. What a disgrace that is, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. You forgot one: No one actually in authority gives a crap.
I'd love to see Bushco prosecuted, but it isn't going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. No, but he better be mindful of war crimes charges for the Pakistan incursion and bombings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrZeeLit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Who would do this?
The GOP isn't going to bring charges to impeach him.
His own DOJ won't do it?
Who?

It's too bad, but Bush is history. Would I love to see them in orange suits doing a perp walk?
You betcha.

I am able to hold two emotions concurrently: one -- enraged at Bush & Co; two - engaged with the future and fixing our problems. I'm willing to live without the Republicans being in power in the near future. And that can be a LONG time out of power if we work together to fix our problems now --> education, health care, poverty, environment, transportation.... just a few.

As much as my personal feelings may be vindicated by prosecuting the basterds (sp tarrantino) ... We won't make a better world by wallowing in their s**t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Very, very well put. My sentiments, exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Curtland1015 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. As much as we'd all love to see Bush in jail, it's never ever going to happen.
Well, regarding the war itself...

We'd all love to think that everyone wants Bush and Co to be locked up for his crimes. But the simple fact is, many MILLIONS of Americans don't think he's done anything wrong. When the trail of lies goes as deep as it does, there is always deniability.

"It wasn't me, I just trusted the reports!"

"I didn't gather that evidence, THEY did!"

"We only did what our bosses told us!"

"Those orders were dictacted by the situation!"

...and on and on and on. With no REAL nail to hammer these assholes to the wall with, there is no real reason to try and jail them in the first place. Not to mention, even if they DID try, a vast number of Americans would see it as nothing else but playing politics and being petty.

As for the other topics you brought up, the US Attorney firings ARE being looked at right now. People have already been blamed and punished for Gitmo (the wrong people, but it's pretty much a dead issue).

The avenues that can best produce results are likely being persued. I know how frustrating it is for some of us, but even if they're followed all the way to the top, Bush and Cheney will never see a day of jail time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Do you want him impeached? Then why start this poll?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. At some point if he doesn't prosecute, YES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. It isn't going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Presidents don't prosecute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Curtland1015 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Don't you know? Everything bad that happens in this country is Obama's fault.
I know that's not what the OP is saying... but in general, if it has happened or hasn't happened, even if there are other people whose job it is to do, it's all Obama's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Best of luck to us, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. He is obligated to investigate torture, yes.
Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture: UN rapporteur

Agence France-Presse | 01/21/2009 2:47 AM


BERLIN - The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/01/20/09/bush-rumsfeld...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
70. Then prepare to be banned from this site.
Free Republic is where you should join the President's die-hard fanatical enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
131. And here is the key difference between Republicans and Democrats folks...
Hell would freeze over and Satan would go looking for space heaters before the Repubs ever even thought of impeaching one of their own, while 7 months into a promising presidency, we already have fools trying to axe one of our own. And we wonder how a screaming mob of 29%ers ever manages to win, could it be that we spend 2X as much energy fighting each other as we do the Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. Other
I suppose I could be wrong but... Is it the Presidents job to perform prosecutions? As far as I know, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. None of that says perform prosecutions
Look... I would like nothing better then to see all of bushco indicted, charged, given a fair trial and then spend the rest of their days in a jail cell but... I think that task belongs with the DoJ... maybe Congress as well... I'm not certain.

Putting that responsibility at the feet of President Obama and calling for his impeachment if he does not do it on your timetable is... well to be blunt... it is a big old steaming pile of shit and I will not support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Yes, under the Geneva torture convention. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Where?
Which part of the Geneva torture convention says that President Obama is responsible for prosecutions of previous administrations crimes and that if he does not do them in a certain amount of time he should be impeached? I'll admit, I am not fully versed on it but I suspect it does not say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Not impeachment but the convention is written so as to criminalize
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 01:59 PM by EFerrari
the failure to investigate immediately upon learning of an instance of torture. I've posted an article from back in January re a statement from the UN Special Rapportuer on torture -- I thinks it's #56.

There's also a more recent one -- last week, iirc -- where Nadler makes about the same argument.

Published on Friday, August 21, 2009 by Huffington Post
Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush

by Sam Stein

WASHINGTON - Even as the issue of torture appears likely to burst back onto the public agenda next week -- thanks to the much anticipated release of an internal CIA report -- one of the most progressive voices in Congress is arguing that the Obama White House has a legal obligation to investigate the Bush torture legacy.

New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture.

"If they follow the law they have no choice," Nadler said in an interview this past weekend.

The logic, for Nadler, is straightforward. As a signatory of the convention against torture, and as a result of the anti-torture act of 1996, the United States government is obligated to investigate accusations of torture when they occur in its jurisdiction.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/21-7

Oops -- the article is in #26, not 56.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. And I agree completely with that...
The article confuses me a bit on the legal aspects. It mentions several times that the White House should investigate torture but it also says:

"New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture."

So... is it that the White House does the prosecution or that they just do not oppose it?

The article also talks about a special prosecuter... I do not know how they get appointed... Is it the President that does that or the DoJ.. or Congress? I don't know.

As I said to the OP when s/he replied to me:

Look... I would like nothing better then to see all of bushco indicted, charged, given a fair trial and then spend the rest of their days in a jail cell but... I think that task belongs with the DoJ... maybe Congress as well... I'm not certain.

Putting that responsibility at the feet of President Obama and calling for his impeachment if he does not do it on your timetable is... well to be blunt... it is a big old steaming pile of shit and I will not support it.

I do not oppose bushco getting exactly what they deserve for their crimes and acts of treason. I do oppose calling for impeachment if it is not done by President Obama by the end of the year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Impeachment aside, I believe that under Geneva, the president
as head of state, is obligated to order DoJ to investigate. And when we signed Geneva, it became US law, too. Obama's responsibility there is clear.

We also have domestic legislation about torture and I'm not familiar with that language. I don't know, for example, if it's written so as to make Congress jointly responsible.

Under Obama, we have the same problem we had under Bush. Is the president above the law? And the answer seems to be, yes, he is because even his opposition doesn't want to upset the flow of money and power in Washington.

But / and, the CIA torture story seems to be bubbling up again and it looks like next week, it will be in the news because Holder is supposed to announce a decision about a special prosecutor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. Perhaps...
I think I kind of see it a bit different, not in the legal or moral sense but in the... how to get it done sense... maybe not the best wording but all I can come up with. I think if President Obama jumped right in and asked for investigations, a large number of people would have objected... Not because they are "for torture" but because the right would spin it as President Obama is "against the US". These freaking birthers/Obama is a secret Muslim douchebags would have gained ground faster and with more of an air of being right without anyone actually looking at their claims. I think it would have hampered him in a huge way. Remember, President Obama is not only fighting the semi-sane repugs but the complete batshit crazy ones as well as an almost complete right wing media... A tough battle there.

I think he has slowly been allowing the release of damning information (the torture memos) to get people used to the idea that bushco committed crimes and to slowly build up "the people" wanting investigation into it... "WE" (the US in general) have to first be brought around to the concept that "WE" committed crimes... Something the US is not very good at admitting.

Sorry... I gotta get to my bottom line here, I'm trying to do this and make dinner for four :D

Bottom line... I fucking hate it but I think the very real truth is that a lot of ground work has to be done before investigation much less prosecutions can be done but... I honestly believe that President Obama is very much working to-wards that end. I also don't think it has ever been done before in our history... very much ground breaking work. I think it will happen and when it does it will be because President Obama helped the American people come to the conclusion that "They" need to see it happen... Hope that makes sense. If not, tell me and I'll expound on it later on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
78. Oh, I agree that the right wing would have a field day.
I was only speaking to the part where he is mandated to investigate. Good luck with dinner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #41
110.  The War Crimes Act of 1996
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 11:41 PM by G_j
something else to look into for prosecuting the Bush crew.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

Torture and Accountability
By Elizabeth Holtzman

This article appeared in the July 18, 2005 edition of The Nation.
June 28, 2005

<snip>

The War Crimes Act of 1996

No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
...

The specter of prosecution was particularly worrisome because the Conventions use broad terminology. Noting that violations may consist of "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment," Gonzales advised the President in his memo that it would be "difficult to predict with confidence" which actions would violate the War Crimes Act and which would not.

Moreover, Gonzales opined, it was "difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels" acting in the future. (The "future" could be a very long time indeed, because there would be no statute of limitations on War Crimes Act prosecutions in cases where the victim died.)

..more..

**
some say the Military Commissions Act (passed a few years ago), nullifies this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
49. Nadler is a good Congressman, but he's just legally wrong
And ultimately, I would like to see prosecutions. But (1) the Geneva Convention against torture does not require Bush et al to be prosecuted, and (2) if it does happen, it's going to take a long time.

You are making the claim. I am very familiar with the Convention and you are completely misunderstanding it.

How long do you think it was between the date that (a) Iran contra was disclosed (b) indictments were handed down and (c) convictions were gotten?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. The mandate is to investigate and no, I"m not misunderstanding anything. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. and what if the next Prez doesnt prosecute Obama for not prosecuting Bush?
This weird mobius strip should never even get going. Bush did the crimes and should do the time. It ends there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Then she wil be in violation of her Oath of Office as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. God do we have to sit through MORE ignorance about impeachment?
I thought we were through with that after November 4 2008.

Here's a big unrecommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Yes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Explain your accusation of ignorance, I'm quite well informed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. You can start with what the impeachable crime is... and the evidence for that crime
Then you can move on to why any Democrat on the planet Earth would want to impeach a popular President of his/her own party, and then you can justify initiating a Constitutional crisis of choice, and then you could justify bringing the entire mechanism of the US Government to a halt in the middle of the worst economic period in decades, two wars, a health care debate, environmental crisis, and many other more pressing issues just so you can have your little leftist fantasy come true.

And oh by the way, the entire exercise would of course do abolutely jack fucking shit to get the Bush team indicted or convinced of their REAL crimes.

Impeachment is an atom bomb, not a paddle. THAT's your ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The rule of law, a little leftist fantasy.
It's actually worse than that, though. I don't think we'll ever be able to impeach a president again because it upsets the political elites too much and they won't allow it to happen. Bush could have eaten young children on television and no one would have moved to impeach him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. "The Rule of Law" The last vestige of those with no real criminal evidence
Impeachment is a fucking atomic bomb, what don't you get about that? Is the use of impeachment really a proportional response to this perceived 'violation' of his oath of office? Can you point to one President EVER that did not 'violate' that oath in some manner? Don't you realize that a 'violation' of an oath is a fundamentally subjective judgement? Is violating an oath even a crime? I don't know.

That's the lasting legacy of the Gingrich Republicans - they lowered the bar for an impeachable offense so low that it is now perceived as a mere political weapon. You've fallen for that, as have too many others. I personally hope there never IS another impeachment, because it tears at the fabric of the nation, and if it's going to be pursued, it should be because the foundation of the nation is at risk. By this criteria, Nixon's would have been one of the few viable impeachments in recent history. Bush would have been acquitted by the Senate and therefore vindicated in his transgressions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. More than one person has already pointed out that Obama is in violation.
And I've posted two links already, read them or don't read them, I think you already have this information anyway.

And at no point on this thread have I advocated impeaching the president, so no, I haven't "fallen" for anything. I've been pointing out what the law is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. You don't seem to know what the law is. That's the problem.
I could say that the UN Convention against requires that Obama deliver a pony to each American child under 15, but saying it's so doesn't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. I think I side with Turley, Nadler and Nowak and not you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
132. Cute.
So I suppose you would be in favor of us getting armed mobs to break up those Tea Party Morons? Maybe we ought to "indefinitely detain" the Republican and "blue dog" members of Congress until they agree to all our policy proposals.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people here are closet authoritarians. You don't want democracy, you want a dictatorship where you get to play the tyrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
66. The impeachnuts are out for blood and they don't care shose
it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brooklyns_Finest Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. Move on (eom).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top