Testing DU..1..2..1..2: Who knows WHY no Senators showed to support impeachment?

[blm]

A Round of applause for constitution-based answers.

;))))

[ORDagnabbit]

1. republicrat, demopublican 1 party system?

[XNASA]

2. 'Cause it ain't gonna happen?

:shrug:

[maddezmom]

4. as much as I want it to happen

I agree, it's not going to happen.

[beachmom]

3. I thought it was because the House does the impeachment

and the Senate serves as a jury. But perhaps others can comment on historically what has happened.

[oldtime dfl_er]

5. similar to my guess

The Senate has to appear to be the objective, cool, deliberative body.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/2880185

[wyldwolf]

7. unless, of course, the senator has already advocated impeachment and...

..historically speaking, sitting senators expresed their opinions on impeachment long before the first gavel bang at the actual impeachment proceeding.

[blm]

10. Nope - Those who were there knew Kerry was making a joke. It wasn't meant for

public record, either.

If Kerry actually ADVOCATED for impeachment or made an official statement about it, wouldn't it be in a press release or in an interview?

[wyldwolf]

12. nope! Kerry tried to cover his gaffe by claiming it was a joke.

[beachmom]

18. As if you were there and knew anything. Look, here's what Kerry

said about impeachment, in general, in a blogger conference call last week:

http://davideisenthal.typepad.com/the_eisenthal_report/2007/04/more_on_sen_ker.html

In response to a question as to whether impeachment of the President is a viable option, Sen. Kerry said, “if you could succeed, do you want Dick Cheney?” He went on to say that there are not sufficient votes in the Senate for impeachment and that such proceedings would detract from the mandate that the American people gave to congressional Democrats in the 2006 election.




Even though he was talking about a Bush impeachment, I doubt a Cheney impeachment would garner any more votes in the Senate.

[wyldwolf]

19. I've not claimed to be there but I can sure read accounts of it

He said it, then afterwards, said it was a joke.

[beachmom]

21. Yes, you can read about it, but you needed to be there

to determine how he delivered the line. And, really, since he's said nothing about it since, it seems to me that the ever truthful Senator Kerry did indeed mean it as a joke among friends (or so-called friends who decided to leak what was said at a private gathering, but I digress . . . ).

[wyldwolf]

23. No, I can read about from those who were there.

[beachmom]

25. Wyldwolf -- do you know someone who was there? nt

[wyldwolf]

27. I just read an account from someone who was

[beachmom]

28. Link? Because when I google john kerry impeachment, all I get

are right wing websites. Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

29. sure

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/kerry_links_ret.html

[beachmom]

Thanks, Wyldwolf. To be perfectly honest, the REAL story is that

we have too many loose lipped Democrats who don't seem to understand when to keep things said at a private gathering private. For me, the dead giveaway that he was joking was this: "Don't tell anyone I said that." Sounded like a joke to me. Either way, the only way it's real is when they say it publically for TV cameras or in a statement. Admittedly, I missed this DU quarrel, so maybe I am missing the point of this whole exercise, but I really think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.

[wyldwolf]

33. still sounds like a quick cover of a gaffe to me.

Admittedly, I missed this DU quarrel, so maybe I am missing the point of this whole exercise, but I really think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.

No, actually, blm took the discussion across two threads.

[blm]

11. Yep - and, imo, it is not ethical for senators to get into discussions about

impeachment where they weigh in one way or another in any conclusive way.

Publicly discussing ASPECTS of the crime as charged is one thing, but the proper role would be to say they WILL BE WEIGHING all the evidence presented to them first, BEFORE they reach a conclusion.

[wyldwolf]

13. Your "opinion" aside, there is no rule or constitutional prohibition

[TwilightZone]

6. Because there aren't enough votes.

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Because They See Removing Bush As A Bad Thing To Do

Certainly a lot of elected Dems want Bush in the WH for the next election, hanging like a rotting albatross around the necks of Repubs - e.g. the idea of Bush wrecking havoc, is not very disturbing to them.

Unfortunately, impeachment will have to come from the Repubs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. Yet is takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove

And we all know the votes just aren't there.

[SaveElmer]

9. Could you point to the clause in the actual Constitution...

Which states Senators are not to express their opinion regarding the potential impeachment of a President(or Vice President etc), and historically what penalties have been applied to Senators that have done so in the two Presidential impeachment proceedings that have occurred in our history.

I'm sure I just missed it...

[wyldwolf]

16. ** crickets ***

[SaveElmer]

37. About what I expected...nt

[MADem]

14. Because the House does the impeachin' and the Senate does the tryin' maybe?

I wouldn't have too much confidence in a judge who hectored a prosecutor to bring charges!

[blm]

15. YES!!! Now why is something so simple still a mystery around here?

.

[maddezmom]

20. but are there any Senators for impeachemt?

:shrug:

[blm]

24. They SHOULDN'T be saying so even if they are at this point.

.

[wyldwolf]

26. says who? You seem to be avoiding that question.

[AtomicKitten]

30. jeezus - what a monster pile

I swear if you-know-who was at the press conference, some folks would be bellyaching about his fab-u-lous-ness and chastising others for not being there. But his no-show results in this pathetic exercise in pretzel logic trying to smooth it over with a steaming pile of crappola.

If nothing else, DU is an entertaining exhibition of those willing to say whatever it takes.

[blm]

32. Baloney - I've already stated NO senator - not even Kerry should speak about it

because it is not ethical for ANY juror to take a conclusive position.

You all TRY to make pretzels where there are none to be made. And actually, it ISN'T entertaining at all - it's ridiculous and you twist and spin based on your biases.

[wyldwolf]

34. says blm - but not based on any constitutional grounds

[AtomicKitten]

39. yep

[Tellurian]

31. After the daily drama of shooting yourself in the foot..

Do you have any toes left?

[blm]

36. You all better learn to fly before you take on eagles. And brooms don't count.

.

[Tellurian]

38. The only chirping I hear is from Chicken Little..thats you!

And perhaps someday you'll avail yourself of a dictionary and respect the meaning of words.

[blm]

40. And some day you will believe in honest and open government as I do.

But then, that will take alot of reading of the congressional record, which may be too much to ask those who prefer their books CLOSED.

[AtomicKitten]

41. yada yada yada

[Tellurian]

44. Take a few Law Classes to educate yourself

a limited intermittent education may help in preventing you from making such supercilious statements in the future and declaring yourself so ill informed to DU readers and the world.

[blm]

45. YOU are the one who thinks BCCI was settled. You get angry when it is pointed out to you

that it was NEVER settled, and that Clinton chose to move past it instead of dealing with it. You think your read of recent government history is reliable?

How many degrees do you think it took to help Poppy Bush cover up his crimes of office?

[Tellurian]

46. I never said any such thing..

you can promote your daily diatribe to the loyalists here... The fact is Iran would not release evidence germaine to putting a lock on the case to advance it forward with any success. The two bankers held accountable were punished by the the court to never hold "banking" positions again. Yes, there was more to be done, but not anytime soon unless there was inter cooperation between several countries, namely the UK and Iran..

So, take a hike friend and find another soapbox and a new audience to gather, who willingly listen to pie in the sky circumstances bloviating from a pseudo purist devoid of a grip on reality!

[blm]

47. heheheh ... so you are fond of saying to some of us..... but, you still don't get BCCI

and I doubt you will ever BOTHER yourself to do so.

Jump on one of the government corruption threads for a change.

[beachmom]

48. BCCI is most definitely NOT finished. It just keeps going and going ...

Note: article dated 4/16/07

http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/3588547/

On a noticeboard of a Canadian website I found the information, that Rakesh Saxena, an alleged world class megacrook was released from prison in Vancouver/Canada in December 2006. He was put into prison, pending extradition to Thailand in March 2006, 10 years after Thailand requested the extradition. “Saxena who” may many ask, and why does an extradition take more than 10 years. Let’s see.

Rakesh Saxena is part of a spiderweb of private armies, merchants of death, financial artists and politicians. Names that are popping up among others are Adnan Khashoggi, Tim Spicer, Rakesh Saxena, Tony Buckingham and Simon Mann.

Meet Adnan Khashoggi

Let’s have a closer look and start with a veteran of arms and shady deals, a close friend of the bin Laden family for decades, an uncle of the late Dodi Fayed, the last partner of Diana Princess of Wales and brother-in-law of the owner of Harrod’s Supermarket in London, Al Fayed, his name: Adnan Khashoggi, once called the richest man on earth. Khashoggi’s origin is Saudi Arabia, his favourite place to live is Marbella in Spain and his favourite businesses are arms deals and the stock market, especially in Vancouver/Canada.

At present, however, he likes more the sand of the beaches of the United Arab Emirates, a better, because safer place to be, when arrest warrants and extradition requests are piling up.

He was involved in the Iran Contra-Affair in the 80s, in which the Pentagon sold weapons to Iran and the profits were used to buy weapons for a CIA sponsored group in Nicaragua, the Contra Rebels. Everything illegal of course, but an army man by the name of Oliver North was day and night putting documents into the shredder, when the scandal was about to be made public. It is good to have such trustworthy people in your house.

Khashoggi was also involved in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a massive washing machine for illegal money from the Medellin drug cartel, Manuel Noriega, and other drug lords. The bank was forcibly closed in 1992 after investigations by a committee of the US senate, in which Senator John Kerry featured prominently.



The investigation is NOT complete, and until it is, it amounts to criminal negligence on the part of our government not taking down all the terror financiers and anyone who enabled it.

[AtomicKitten]

49. changing the subject is not a debate technique

Tellurian NEVER said it was.

[beachmom]

50. BCCI is the root cause for ALL of these debates on DU.

So if there is indeed no quarrel from Tellurian that BCCI is NOT settled, then why all the fighting? Why not admit that this was not Clinton's finest moment? Clearly, this is important to many of us. It just seems like the same folks belittle those of us concerned about terror financing and the government corruption that covered it up, when a little intellectual honesty could bring the heat down. I've shown honesty in the past on Kerry (and the McCain VP discussions), and I would like to hear that a) BCCI is just not that important to a few of you or that b) it is important but not as important as getting Hillary in the WH or c) somebody can actually argue that SHE will do what HE would not do and declassify pertinent documents to settle this case once and for all. Given our problems with Iran who received nuclear secrets from AQ Khan, it is vital to our national security to fully investigate everything that went on at BCCI.

[AtomicKitten]

51. the only comment I have

... is that your priority is not others' priorities, and that those thinking along the lines you are have flat-out BLAMED Clinton in a blind, spitting rage and continue to do so at every opportunity whether it's germane to the conversation or not. Such a simplistic view of a complex subject.

What I see is a pile of felonies and assorted misdemeanors that will yet again be left to the incoming Democratic president - WHOEVER THAT IS - and with that in mind, I will leave it to them to sort it out.

[Tellurian]

52. Look at the topic of this thread..

the provocateurs show up with their soap boxes under their arms imitating Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show looking for new blood to lap up their BS! With not an middling concept of the complexities of International Law, statutes of limitations, deceased witnesses...and on and on and on..and they waste everyones time endlessly yammering about a topic so out of their realm of understanding, because the letter of the law in the real world is a concept they know nothing about.

[sandnsea]

17. We really don't know why

Unless any of them have given a reason. There's nothing to stop them from showing up at a press conference, nor nothing that compels them to.

Unless a Senator has specifically said they support impeachment, my conclusion is that they don't. Continuing to focus on the war and other immediate issues is more important.

And they need to start using the "O" word - because we aren't getting anything done because Republicans are OBSTRUCTING and continuing to rubberstamp Bush.

[William769]

22. MAYBE BECAUSE THEY DON'T IMPEACH!

They convict if warranted.

[blm]

42. Yep. Another right answer.

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. A more interesting question is why no Representatives are supporting Kucinich's effort

[ecstatic]

43. same reason they didn't support the CBC when Bush&Co. stole Florida?

:eyes: :shrug: :mad: