Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary argued for impeachment of Nixon. "One wonders where she is now."

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 10:53 AM
Original message
Hillary argued for impeachment of Nixon. "One wonders where she is now."
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 10:53 AM by Karmadillo
Interesting article about the efforts to impeach Nixon.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12242005.html

When Impeachment Was Taken Seriously
"Here's to the Land You've Torn the Heart Out Of"
By RON JACOBS


The summer 2005 revelations by former FBI assistant director W. Mark Felt that he was the source known as Deep Throat that helped bring down Richard Nixon has revived talk among certain US residents regarding the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. While I have great reservations about the likelihood of such an event happening, I naturally support almost any move that would slow down the march toward tyranny this nation is heading towards. My reservations regarding the likely success of any impeachment drive stem from the apparent stranglehold the current regime seems to have on all branches of the government, not to mention its sycophantic support from the media. Impeachment doesn't rid us of the corrupt and authoritarian system we live under; it only rids us of one of the humans administering that system.

<edit>

In Yet there is hope. These usurpers, these wannabe tyrants, can be dethroned. This is the lesson from Nixon's downfall. Or his regime could declare martial law. We feared the latter in 1973, only to watch the ruling class turn in on itself like two pit bulls in a pit. After the fight was over, though, the one thing that became apparent was that the system had survived...

<edit>

Although Watergate was (to quote the Weather Underground document Prairie Fire-The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism) a "domestic reflection of the empire in crisis," the results proved that the system of capital and power known as the United States Empire was stronger than any one man. Nixon was sacrificed at the altar at which he had served and we learned another lesson about the system's gratitude. Even if Bush is dethroned, there are others who would willingly fill his role.

<edit>

It is important to remember that Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before the charges were heard by the Congress. One of his reasons for doing so must certainly have been the retirement monies he would lose. Indeed, the first president to be impeached since the 19th century was not impeached for leading the nation in a war under false pretenses or purposely circumventing the constitution, but for carrying on a seedy sexual affair in the White House. Yes, I am referring to Bill Clinton, who was the target of a concerted effort to destroy him and his politics from the moment he arrived in the White House. Some observers have gone so far as to state that the entire process against Clinton was revenge by the right wing for the proceedings against Nixon some twenty years earlier. It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife, was part of the staff that drew up the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. In fact,she is credited with arguing for the article regarding the illegal bombing of Cambodia. One wonders where she is now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. She's in the Senate
which would conduct the trial on any impeachment...which means she has to maintain an impartial stance in public.

Does no-one understand basic civics anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Are you saying no Senators said anything about Nixon or Clinton before
an Impeachment process? Are you really saying that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Be sure to trot out what they said....
Yeah, there's a fucking swell idea...we want our Senators to be just as idiotic and disgraceful as the GOPs....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. So she can't express an opinion? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Duh......
Does no one understand basic civics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Apparently not, so explain basic civics to me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. If impeachment happens, where will the trial take place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. I get that point, but it doesn't explain the
righteous indignation expressed by others in Congress. Should impeachment happen, it doesn't preclude peoples' opinions. Remember, they're like assholes and we all have them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. So because Republicans behave like idiots
you want Democrats to do so as well.... ho kay.

"others in Congress"
Which House?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Off the top of my head,
Feingold, Feinstein, Boxer, Byrd, Conyers, Lewis: both houses, all Dems here. And I'm sure there are more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. And what did they say?
Far as I know, all they did was call for an investigation...which is proper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Get over it. Google news if you're that interested. You're
straying from the point, which is, they are entitled to opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. If you're not going to produce what they say
then I'm going to assume that yoiu don't fucking know what you're talkng about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Aw, break my heart. And have a nice day. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Yeah, he's one to complain about lack of links and sources
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. What a curmudgeon! Puts Andy Rooney to shame!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
109. here's a few links you may wish to read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. Oh good lord! I think you may be right!
Thanks for the laugh :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Oh, there is more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. In the Senate, filled with people who already have opinions
If the folks who wrote the constitution wanted to have an impartial jury for these trials, they sure as hell would NOT have picked the Senate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Thanks, megan, and agree. How can someone NOT
have an opinion? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
37. who are nonetheless expected to behave properly....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. That's not entirely accurate- it is, by nature, a political process
Otherwise the constitution would specify such cases go through the regular court system. It's not like regular jurors who are chosen partly based on the fact that they know as little about a case as possible. These are people who know the background of the case and invariably already have opinions about it.

From the American Bar Association:

-----------------------------------------------

Q. What is the basic impeachment process?
A. The basic impeachment process is spelled out in the Constitution. In essence, the House of Representatives functions something like a grand jury, in that it weighs the evidence and determines whether it is sufficient to justify articles of impeachment (similar to an indictment) and a trial to determine whether the charged official is guilty or not guilty. This trial is held in the Senate, with the Senators serving as jurors. The basic process, then, is in broad outline similar to the process for bringing criminal charges against an individual through the judicial system. If impeachment proceedings are brought against the President, the Chief Justice presides, adding a "judicial" aspect.

However, principal actors in the process are not ordinary citizens acting as grand jurors and trial jurors, but rather political figures--elected officials who serve by virtue of their position, and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment. That inevitably introduces a "political" element not directly present in judicial trials.

Q. How is impeachment different from the criminal and civil processes?
A. The criminal process involves personal misconduct and imposes penalties to vindicate the interests of society. The civil process involves personal fault and imposes liability to compensate individual victims.

The impeachment process is different from either of these. While it has elements of the criminal process, it is also a "political" process in that it is designed to deal with misconduct by high public officers. In the words of professor Jeff Atkinson of DePaul Law School, impeachment is designed "to protect our country and our Constitution from leadership that has become a danger to the country. Phrases used by the framers of the Constitution include 'corruption,' 'abuse of power,' 'subversion of the Constitution,' and 'neglect of duty.'"

In keeping with this purpose, the process and remedy are also "political." Our elected representatives in Congress sit in judgment, and, if convicted, the offender is removed from office and not permitted to hold office again.


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. And it is proper for Senators to behave in an impartial manner....
until the trial actually begins....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
32. According to what?
Mr Benchley's book of Senatorial Manners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. So basically, you want an ass like Frist or Trent Lott....
Good to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Wha???
I don't even know what you are talking about. If you would care to respond to the things I actually said, or cite sources for what you are saying, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will move on to productive conversation elsewhere.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Been there, done that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
70. Just curious! Has Hillary called for an investigation
of Bush's behavior, regarding the lies about the war in Iraq or now, about Domestic Spying? Has she even asked for an investigation of what went wrong in NO that cost the lives of over a thousands US citizens and maybe as many as 6,000 or more, who are still unaccounted for? That would be 'proper' as you say! Although it would anger the neo/libcons, I suppose and we can't risk that, can we?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. I guess there's one person we know who doesn't understand basic civics!
thanks for illuminating both that fact and the underlying issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. So tell us, kenny
what in that pile of blah said that Senators should behave in a partisan manner before an impeachment trial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
53. Trying to save face by acting ignorant and belligerent
usually backfires. Yes that works for the Bush administration, but ought we to base our behavior on theirs? I don't think you ought to. MM said Senators were not obliged to have no opinion about impeachment or to say nothing in public about the prospect of an impeachment and consequent trial. You demanded she support that view contrary to yours with an external citation. Which she did.

And now you refuse to acknowledge it.

I think that's about as far as I can go without invoking the wrath of the moderators--but then again it's as far as I need go since everyone can draw the obvious conclusion about your rhetorical methods now that you've given them a second example of the "gratuitous attack".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. To be fair...That is all he has.
Belligerence.....It's a virtue! :eyes: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
80. So in other words, you got nothing
and you want to piss and moan about it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
76. There's a big difference between not bashing the Chimp in public....
...and endorsing the neo-con fascist agenda. Or wasting time with moral majority bullshit like videogame policing and flag burning laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. I really don't think Hillary had much to do with
Nixon's impeachment - she hardly had any power during that time frame - she and many others read a helluva lot of paperwork.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't think the impeachment of Bush
is such a good idea right now. Look what we would get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Any impeachment of Bush would involve Impeachment of Cheney.
We could have a Democratic president by early '07 if we play our cards right. President Pelosi sounds pretty good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. Presidential Succession Act of 1792
The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

I don't see Pelosi's name there anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
49. It assumes we take the majority in the House in '06.
Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. Thats a very big assumption
And not realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Of course it's realistic.
Have you seen Republicans' poll numbers lately? They are ready to fall. The only question is whether Dems can persuade voters that they can be trusted to take the reins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Democrats don't even trust Democrats. (hell just look at DU)
It will be business as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Sure...just give up then. Sorry, I like to think that Dems can learn and
win. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. I haven't given up, I just fight the fights that can be won
And the House cannot be won in the next election. The repukes control the House by 33 seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. Dispite the many tired excuses the 'Rah Rah Hillary' crew will give you...
Sen. Frist: “There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors…Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor…The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice.”

Sen. Kyl: “…there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses…John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society’ than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.’”

Sen. DeWine: “Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice…Perjury is also a very serious crime…The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail.”

Sen. Talent: “Nobody else in a position of trust, not a CEO, not a labor union leader, not a principal of a school could do half of what the president has done and stay in office. I mean, who would have said a year ago that a president could perjure himself and obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses… and stay in office.”

Sen. McConnell: “I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors…Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice.”

Sen. Voinovich: “As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.’”

Sen. Hutchison: “The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy.”

Sen. Craig: “There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind, and the House managers have demonstrated these crimes were committed by the president. As for the excuses being desperately sought by some to allow President Clinton to escape accountability, it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president.”

Sen. Brownback: “Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. But, but, but only Republicans can fight. It's one of those basic civics
positions that everyone knows about. We have to wait until the invisible hand miraculously brings about a critical mass of citizens calling for impeachment. We're not allowed to actually try to lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. Now I am apparently part of the 'Hate America' Crowd.
I hate the US with a White Hot Passion. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. You sure seem to....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. If you say so Mr.Honesty
:eyes:

Or is it Mr. Gullible this week?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Gee,
what a shame I left off dates so that people would understand that those Senate quotes were all post-impeachment and thus bogus...oh wait, that was YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Actually the brackets on the site caused the dates to drop.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/24/hutchison-flip-flop A site that is no-doubt full of Progressive Purists and McCarthy Leftists.

Nice try though, Mr.Honesty :eyes:

We'll go with your link. Plenty of pre- '02/12/1999 quotes there.
http://www.democrats.org/a/p/in_their_own_words_republicans_on_perjury_obstruction_of_justice.html

Former Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) – "Lott declined to fully define what constitutes an impeachable crime but said "I think clearly perjury is an impeachable offense ... I think bad conduct is enough for impeachment."

Current Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) – "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors...Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor...The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice."

Former Speaker (Elect) of the House Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) – "And so, perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in the penitentiary, is a crime for which the President may be held accountable, no matter the circumstances."

Current Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)— "Mr. Speaker, I am sadden that there is clear and convincing evidence that the president lied under oath, obstructed justice and abused the powers of his office in an attempt to cover up his wrong doing. I regret that the president's behavior puts me in the position of having to vote in favors of articles of impeachment and pass this matter onto the U.S. Senate for final judgment. In facing this solemn duty, I look to the wisdom of our founding fathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment concerns offenses which proceed from the misconduct to public men -- or in other words, from the apt abuse of violation of some public trust. The evidence in President Clinton's case is overwhelming that he has abused and violated the public trust."

Former House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) – "But Mr. Speaker, perjury before a grand jury is not personal and it is not private. Obstruction of justice is not personal and it is not private. Abuse of the power of the greatest office in the world is not personal and it is not private."

Former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) – "'It became obvious to me that he had undermined his ability to lead not only at home but in the world,' DeLay said. His call for Clinton's resignation is 'based solely on the fact that the president lied.'"
Former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) – Tim. What we have here, and what I've seen, is this pattern of conduct. And it goes back as far as Arkansas, where the president has lied, covered up, stonewalled and tried to destroy his enemy. And if you just look from the very beginning--and what I've tried to do is advise the president that in order to accept the consequences of his action and put all this behind him, the honorable thing to do would be to resign.
Current Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) – "This is not about the president's personal conduct...When the president commits perjury that clearly is an attack on the judiciary, on the rule of law."

Former RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson - "Perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice are public, not private matters, and we must rely on the Independent Counsel and the constitutional process to determine the truth. Tragically, America could have been spared this entire sad saga if the president had told the truth in the first place."
SENATORS THOUGHT SO TOO

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) – "Clinton not only lied to the public, creating perhaps permanent mistrust, but he lied under oath ... his is very serious indeed. Honesty is always the best policy; but, lying under oath is perjury, and it is a crime. Other people who commit perjury sometimes go to jail for it."

Senator Chuck Hagel, (R-NE) – "Defined a "high crime" as an 'abuse of power.' And when perjury and obstruction of justice are committed by a president, Hagel added, 'they constitute an abuse of the highest power.'"

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) – "Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses which must not be tolerated by anyone in our society."

Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) – "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government."

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) – "...there can be no doubt that perjurious, false, and misleading statements made under oath in federal court proceedings are indeed impeachable offenses...John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said `there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it `discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'"

Senator Michael DeWine (R-OH) – "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth-so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies-so that injustice may prevail."

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice."

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) – "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, `The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'"

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) – "The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overriding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy."

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) – "There is no question in my mind that perjury and obstruction of justice are the kind of public crimes that the Founders had in mind...it seems to me that creating such loopholes would require tearing holes in the Constitution-something that cannot be justified to protect this president, or any president."

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) – "These acts are not merely technical violations of federal law; they demonstrate a broad and consistent pattern of behavior designed to corrupt our system of due process. To withhold or delay swift and appropriate action would be to hold a single individual above the law; and, herein lies the tragic precedent which a vote against impeachment creates. A vote against impeachment holds a single individual to a unique standard, above all other citizens, and outside the boundaries of our judicial system."

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) – "Gregg said the idea that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors 'is a little hard to understand, for it is very obvious that our society treats both perjury and obstruction of justice as extraordinarily serious crimes, ones for which people are put in prison.' He said such thinking undermines the judicial process."

Former Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) – "In the event that the president changes his story, and in the event that the president tells a different story now which would result in his having committed perjury, that's a high crime. That's a serious disregard. That's undermining the system of justice which he has sworn to uphold."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
81. And when we see the dates, we realize how bogus your post was....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #81
89. When Mr.Honesty calls someone bogus, it really stings!
NOT :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. Yeah, there's a swell argument....NOT
Yes, we want Democratic Senators to behave JUST LIKE some of the scummiest Republicans around....<sarcasm>

I wonder why some of you progressive purists don't just pull up stakes and BECOME Republicans--it's clear you hate the US and the Democrats with a white-hot passion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. That is sooooooooo two months ago.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. What's changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
55. Other than YOUR position on the Center Dems?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
84. Yeah, I found out how dishonest our "progressive purists" are....
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 03:07 PM by MrBenchley
and it's been borne out since. As this thread shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
71. Funny, that's the same argument I always get
from rightwingers 'you liberals are supposed to be the nice guys who fight fair, so why are you being so mean?' Makes me laugh!! Where did they get the idea that Democrats are wimps? Rush and the rightwing propaganda machine, maybe? Or from posters who, while not observing his own rules of behaving nicely, calls for Dems to go on being the wimps they have been painted to be by the opposition? What a joke.

This country is at stake. YOU be nice to the radical rightwing if you like, don't expect the rest of us to act in accordance with THEIR definition of how we ought to behave. And btw, while you're at it, it might be nice if you would speak to your fellow progressives in a more respectful way. You don't have to, of course. It's just that you seem to advocate 'nice behavior' so I wondered why you don't act on your own advice when it comes to Democrats?

For the record, you don't go to a duel with a knife when your opponent has a pistol. We are not dealing with 'fair fighters' here. Trying to be 'nice' has gotten us exactly where?

If Republicans can talk about the crimes of a president before impeachment takes place, so can Democrats. They made the rules, now let them live with them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. That IS rich....
"This country is at stake."
Funny that instead of doing something about it, our Junior Joe McCarthy club is attacking Democrats, ain't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
72. You make SO much sense...
The "progressive purists" (which is a nice name by the way, no offense would be taken, if I were one) should become republicans...how the hell does that make ANY sense? Oh because you don't agree with either, that's right. And what Mr Benchley says goes...how quickly I forget the rules of civics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #72
85. Yeah, I do....
We got a bunch of childish dimwits who hate all Democrats, (especially Democrats up for re-election who are beating their GOP opponent like a drum), who draw up enemies lists, and are dishonest and ignorant. Fits the GOP better than the dDemocratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. As opposed to folks who USED to hate all dems.
Way back, Oh, Say, two months ago. Oh thats right, you were guilible back then. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #95
102. Don't tell me you're going to drag out those tired old links AGAIN?
Don't you ever get tired of looking lame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Are you looking in a mirror?
"Don't you ever get tired of looking lame?"


I would be happy to post htem for anyone who you have put on your enemy list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Guess you never DO get tired of looking lame
Have at it...it'll be another BIG laugh....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. We won't be laughing with you. We'll be laughing at you.
You understand that, right Mr.Honesty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
79. You seem confused about a number of things in this thread....
...might I suggest that you take some time off to sort out exactly where you stand with the basic beliefs of the Democratic Party and those of the GOP-lite DLC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #79
86. I know where I stand...with Democrats like Hillary Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #79
96. Oh, his position gets real confusing when using the search feature.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. Are these post-impeachment statements by GOP senators?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Frist's remarks were after the verdict....
So were Kyl's, Craig's, Hutchinson's and DeWine's....

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/in_their_own_words_republicans_on_perjury_obstruction_of_justice.html

But then the beauty part of the progressive purist position is its relentless honesty (snicker)....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
58. Then it's proper and fitting for Hillary to make a statement AFTER she
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 12:15 PM by oasis
votes for removal.

Back to square 1. (or post #1)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #58
82. Yup....
But in the meantime, we've got this desperate bit of stupidity by the Junior Joe McCarthy Club.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. There's no reason to augment legitimate arguments with exaggerations.
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 11:28 AM by Kagemusha
Clinton was impeached because the House deemed it proper to hold him to a higher standard relating to misleading a court of law while under oath relating to a seedy, borderline sexual affair. He was not impeached for the affair itself. There's no need to embellish the situation by arguing otherwise. The Senate decided that whatever he'd done did not warrant removal from office. However much I agree with that, I get sick of hearing how the President should only be held to the standard of an ordinary citizen. If you want an example of why a President should be held to a higher standard, just look at what Bush is doing with the authority invested in him.

It's not important to remember that Nixon was not impeached because all he did was quit before he was fired. His financial situation may have been less dire as a result but, from the nation's point of view, the difference was minute.

Now let's assume we all accept that Bush did indeed violate the law on wiretaps, and indeed, has no intention of following the law. Look, people. It's real simple. Congress, by either:

- Doing nothing
- Impeaching Bush and failing to convict him of high crimes or misdemeanors warranting the sole Congressional punishment of removal from office

implicitly or explicitly (either will work here) endorses the President's behavior and, by virtue of doing nothing to support the judicial branch's loss of Congressional-approved jurisdiction over warrants relating to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, effectively makes the illegal, legal.

Impeachment is a political act. Not impeaching in the face of clear violations of law is also a political act. Both acts - impeaching, and concurrently, not impeaching - are foreseen in the constitution. If Congress in its wisdom, or lack thereof, determines what Bush has authorized to not be worth impeaching, because defending the rule of law is not worth it during this state of war, then that is Congress' choice; by virtue of enabling an absence of law, Congress makes what the administration is doing legal. It is allowed to do so. Insofar as impeachment goes, it is not the Supreme Court that removes Presidents: it is the elected Congress, on the initiative of the House, a body with members elected every two years, as opposed to a body with members elected - never.

Put another way, if Congress wants to abandon the rule of law in a specific case and enable the Executive unlimited power in that area, "temporarily" during a "state of war" or not, the will of the Founders does not trump the will of Congress over two centuries later. Not in this system. Ben Franklin doesn't decide: Hastert & Friends do.

My point is that Hillary can do nothing to initiate impeachment; if the House doesn't want to do anything, she is powerless as a Senator aside from the power to spit in the wind and waste her words. And provided the House sits on its rear end, Bush's actions are, if de jure, then de facto, legal... and all the whining in the world will not change that de facto fact.

Edit: Subject line too provocative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. Good Post!
Hillary could raise a stink though and put a few bugs in congresscritter ears, right.

Let's go Hillary, times a wastin. :crickets:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
26. My congressman's reason for not pushing impeachment:
I asked him, face to face, why the hell he (a good Democrat) isn't pushing for impeachment. He agreed that Bush has committed impeachable offenses and that he deserves to be impeached.

But -- he said that if they pushed for it, no other business in Congress would get done. No budgets, no bills passed, nothing. Impeachment would completely tie up congress for a year, and he didn't think that was good for the nation.

I told him I STILL want the SOB impeached. At least MENTION the word every chance he could. He said he would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. That's a B.S. excuse if ever I heard one
You need to remind your Representative that the United States Congress should be intelligent enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Silly me, I always thought that as Americans, we had the intelligence and capacity to do more than one thing at a time.

And furthermore, impeaching a sitting President for treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors IS part of the people's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. No lie
I was going to comment something like this:
Forget the other business- it is doing no good except bankrupting the nation. We need to remove the crooks and liars in order to get to the people's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. It's especially at times like this
That I am really angry as a D.C. resident.

We pay federal taxes, yet we basically have no respresentation in Congress.

We have one delegate who has limited powers, and can only vote "in committee."

I truly wish I had Representatives I could write to, to urge Idiot Son's impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. Well, consider my situation:
I have 2 Senators, Cornyn and KBHutchinson. My representative is DeLay. :eyes:
So even though I supposedly have reps, I have no one that I can bitch to who will listen.:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Yikes!!!! You really have no representation at all, either!
God Bless You for having to put up with those three! :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. My heart bleeds for you
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
68. I got one Senator who is good (Dayton)
but he decided to give up the ghost- I think he was threatened somehow, but have no proof. The other one is noamie coleman who has the blessing of dubco/chenco and took the helm after Wellstone got whacked
I just wish someone would start a big mission to trash dubco, no matter how they do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntravenousDemilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
100. Your congressman should be told, in no uncertain terms,
that impeachment is Job One, and that absolutely everything else can bloody well wait. The whole POINT, until Bush and his cabal are removed, is to stall all legislation in the House, let the wheels of government grind to a halt, so that no other items of the Bush agenda can possibly be passed. There's no point in removing Bush from office if all of his measures have already been passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
30. One wonders why such a good Democrat is the focus of a witch hunt by
people supposedly from her own party. Hmmmmmmm, anything to keep her from making it through the primaries. Yup, one has to wonder alright.

Let's see what else we can take that's a positive about her and turn into a negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
45. Amazing, isn't it....
How do you like the bogus quote use up above...to make it seem as if Republicans' post-impeachment quotes were all pre-impeachment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. Hey Mr.Honesty
We can use your posted site if you want.

Plenty of pre impeachment quotes there.

Note: The brackets will cause the dates to drop if not removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
87. And that's why you didn't put a link up....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. I put up links to both Mr.Honesty.
Plenty of quotes from the GOP party that predate 02/12/1999.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. You put up bogus quotes in serivce of a bogus argument
and you got busted doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. If you say so Mr.Honesty
Add me to your ever growing enemies list, tee hee hee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. I got no enemies list....
You don't matter enough to bother with....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Teeny Progressives, Progressive Purists, McCarthyites,
Shits, Leftists, Third Party Whackos, Chilish, Extremists, Nazis, Pathetic Crybabies, Whiners, etc.

Shall I go further or do you recognize your own words here?

Yep, You 'gots' no enemies lists. :eyes:

See you at the caucus Mr.Honesty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Fits some here to a T--and they're both dishonest
and pathetic....

But I don't draw up enemies list. I merely jeer at them as they deserve and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Were you dishonest and pathetic when you jeered the DLC?
Or are you now?

Keep your 'non-list' going, we all need the laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
73. It's unsettling when the article has to use her own positives against her
"It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife, was part of the staff that drew up the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. In fact,she is credited with arguing for the article regarding the illegal bombing of Cambodia. One wonders where she is now?"

I guess when they can't find enough negative current events concerning her, they have to go back 3 decades, find some positives about her, and turn it all into a negative by implying that she doesn't have the same standards today as she did yesterday. Whether or not she has the same standards, it's pretty sad that methodology like this is used to make these kind of implications about her with no substance to back them up. It's almost like the author of the article is hinting that Hillary is trying to act the opposite under the Bush times as she did during the Nixon times in order to get the right wing off her back for her previous acts against Nixon, lol, yet instead of coming right out and saying it, he says, "One wonders where she is now".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. It's a dishonest hatchet job....
and shameful, no matter which extreme it originates from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
56. I agree that there is often a negative attitude towards Hillary here,
but you are most certainly not in a position to throw the first stone against people who put a good Democrat as the focus of a witch hunt - you can't resist entering every single John Kerry thread and throwing trash.

Like many here, I think that Hillary both needs to speak about the issues; spying without warrants, Iraq, etc but that it is premature to speak about impeachment. Hillary is avoiding controversy and as the front runner this is a valid strategy. She has a right to chose her stands. (Impeachment even if Bush clearly deserves it is not now feasible - so making it an issue is quixotic.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. Such as?
"you can't resist entering every single John Kerry thread and throwing trash."

Show me the "trash" you speak of. Here you've just made a broad general statement, but didn't back it up with anything specific in regards to this "trash" you speak of, so how about at least having the decency to post some "trash" I threw at Kerry. I really don't mind you doing it. I suspect that mostly what you'll find is me criticizing him as a campaigner, not as a man. I've said nothing but positive things about him as a Senator, as a war hero, as a person. What you can't stand hearing is that many of us think Kerry ran a pathetic campaign and thus was a poor candidate...IMO, of course. To that I say grow some thick skin. But go ahead and post whatever trash I threw at him. If it's trash or something I said about him that's not true, I'll own up. I'll check later to see what you come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
75. One wonders why such a "good Democrat" consistently sides with.....
...the traitorous neo-con bastards who are destroying this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #75
88. Hey, I'm proud to stand with Tom Vilsack and Hillary Clinton....
You're welcome to go off to Green Undergorund and piss and moan about it if you don't like it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #88
97. If you're proud to stand with neocon traitors who are killing this country
Then you're welcome to go off to Likudist Traitor Underground and piss and moan about your bizzare Joe McCarthy fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Go rant to somebody who gives a shit....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
108. How exactly is Hillary a neocon traitor? Please inform us
because it's easy to hurl accusations, but they don't mean squat unless you can provide specific examples to back your claims.

If Hillary is a neocon, then almost every other Democrat has to be one too, because her "progressive score" when voting on all issues, is 92%, one of the highest scores of all Democrats. "Progressively", only 8 senators rank above her. Some neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
77. The minute she states publicly that our presence in Iraq is both....
...illegal and immoral, I will consider supporting her for any position she wants.

But, stating publicly that she continues to support the illegal and immoral war in Iraq is NOT getting it done for me.

If you have a problem with that, so be it. You're going to find that I'm not the only 30 year registered Democrat that feels that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #77
91. You must hate the US of A
You filthy Joe McCarthy Progressive Purist! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
64. I wonder too
:shrug: She was the first one in the senate to talk about election reform and how unfair the system is in 2000. She's been pretty quiet lately though. :shrug: It's amazing how all the same players from Nixon are back and in their same positions. So I wonder where this will lead Hillary and even John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
74. Don't you mean Senator Clinton?
What's with this Hillary crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
111. No. I meant Hillary. Thanks for asking.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
104. The presumptive nominee for President
isn't the one who should be calling for the impeachment of a sitting president.

That's politically obvious.

Unless you really just want Hillary to be the center of a firestorm to undercut her chances in 2008.

How pathetically transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #104
110. Thank you for making perfect sense
Well said
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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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