IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?
I know Turley was mentioned in the Dore thread - thought it should be more productive here. This is what he said during the Clinton impeachment:
"impeachment serves a purpose beyond removal ... the House does not convict but merely accuses. Thus, the House plays an important role in deterring presidential misconduct."
"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct."
I completely agree with 1998 Turley.
jamie said:
I know Turley was mentioned in the Dore thread - thought it should be more productive here. This is what he said during the Clinton impeachment:
"impeachment serves a purpose beyond removal ... the House does not convict but merely accuses. Thus, the House plays an important role in deterring presidential misconduct."
"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct."
I completely agree with 1998 Turley.
He was a truth upholder then,
He's hackier than that now.
Rep. Schiff with Impeachment 101:
.@RepAdamSchiff: "This is precisely the kind of conduct the founders were most concerned about when they provided the remedy of impeachment...that a president of the United States would abuse his power to seek foreign intervention in our affairs." That's exactly what Trump did. pic.twitter.com/m4MA7WGsNU
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war based on false evidence because she didn't think it was impeachable.
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war based on false evidence because she didn't think it was impeachable.
The House could certainly have impeached Bush for war crimes after he explicitly ordered the torture of prisoners.
But none of that excuses Trump's crimes.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
On June 10, 2008 Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced Resolution H Res 1345 that contained 35 Articles of Impeachment of which the first two were:
ARTICLE i --: DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDS TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
ARTICLE II—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION
The House voted 251-166 to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee where no action was taken.
Pelosi didn't think these crimes were impeachable.
Now go back to bashing the New York Times.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
On June 10, 2008 Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced Resolution H Res 1345 that contained 35 Articles of Impeachment of which the first two were:
ARTICLE i --: DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDS TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
ARTICLE II—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION
The House voted 251-166 to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee where no action was taken.
Pelosi didn't think these crimes were impeachable.
Now go back to bashing the New York Times.
yeah ok, but you ignored my question.
You know - impeachment is meant to handle situations where the normal functions of government otherwise have no recourse.
Both of the above could have been stopped if the opposition party had prevailed - e.g. by not passing the AUMF. But they didn't prevail, and Bush achieved the approval of the government to start the war - i.e. exactly the way it's supposed to work.
You can't call for an impeachment just because your side loses a vote.
Also, you can't argue that Bush lied to get his way. Plenty of people, at the time, knew he was lying. Even Pelosi, in that interview you linked to, said the there was no evidence of nukes and knew the tie-in to 9/11 was b.s. They had the facts on their side, but they failed to prevail.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
On June 10, 2008 Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced Resolution H Res 1345 that contained 35 Articles of Impeachment of which the first two were:
ARTICLE i --: DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDS TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
ARTICLE II—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION
The House voted 251-166 to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee where no action was taken.
Pelosi didn't think these crimes were impeachable.
Now go back to bashing the New York Times.
yeah ok, but you ignored my question.
Your question was
" um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?"
And I showed you how. The House -- led by "it wasn't impeachable" Pelosi didn't have the political will to follow through on the resolution.
You know - impeachment is meant to handle situations where the normal functions of government otherwise have no recourse.I thought it was to remove a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. This certainly qualified.
Both of the above could have been stopped if the opposition party had prevailed - e.g. by not passing the AUMF. But they didn't prevail, and Bush achieved the approval of the government to start the war - i.e. exactly the way it's supposed to work.
The falsehoods and fabrications would have continued regardless of the vote on the AUMF.
You can't call for an impeachment just because your side loses a vote.
Two hundred and fifty-one House members disagreed.
Also, you can't argue that Bush lied to get his way. Plenty of people, at the
time, knew he was lying. Even Pelosi, in that interview you linked to,
said the there was no evidence of nukes and knew the tie-in to 9/11 was
b.s. They had the facts on their side, but they failed to prevail.
Right, lots of people knew he was lying, but only one of them was the President.
Reminder -- I listed only 2 of the 35 Articles of Impeachment.
you still didn't answer my question and you're avoiding the issue of what impeachment was meant for.
Congress voted for the Iraq War.
You can't then go back and impeach him for going to war.
Are you really gonna be this obtuse about it?
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
"Nitwits"? That's Katie Halper, who with Matt Taibbi hosts one of the most pro-Bernie internet programs.
Whether the House should have voted on Articles of Impeachment is a nice question for a historical discussion about the Presidency of George W. Bush.
It's not relevant to the documented statements and actions of the current President, for which Articles of Impeachment are currently being considered.
nohero said:
"Nitwits"? That's Katie Halper, who with Matt Taibbi hosts one of the most pro-Bernie internet programs.
I was mostly referring to the commentariat braintrust on that thread.
drummerboy said:
nohero said:
"Nitwits"? That's Katie Halper, who with Matt Taibbi hosts one of the most pro-Bernie internet programs.
I was mostly referring to the commentariat braintrust on that thread.
I know. There might have been sarcasm about the tweeter involved in my response to you.
mrincredible said:
Holy cow this is insane.
What's happening? Should I take it off mute?
Lots of squabbling in the opening statement period. Points of order that Nadler dismissed, lots of yelling from members of the minority.
We've moved on to testimony from the majority counsel. There was lots of gavel banging.
OK, I'll check that out later. For now, I'm off to have a tooth pulled.
drummerboy said:
OK, I'll check that out later. For now, I'm off to have a tooth pulled.
One is less painful than the other.
The Democrats counsel is very clearly laying out the case for impeachment. It makes me sad, because it seems so blatant to me and it's obvious the Republicans will never vote to remove him. And even if he avoids removal by a single vote he would declare himself completely vindicated.
mrincredible said:
What was that guy yelling?
The guy yelling that Nadler and the Democrats were committing treason?
This guy:
Here's some video of the Infowars advocate for lynching Obama who interrupted this morning's impeachment hearing. In 2016, he called himself "The Cuckslayer."https://t.co/qaIE9U0JBE
mrincredible said:
The Democrats counsel is very clearly laying out the case for impeachment. It makes me sad, because it seems so blatant to me and it's obvious the Republicans will never vote to remove him. And even if he avoids removal by a single vote he would declare himself completely vindicated.
The Republicans are supporting a motion that it violates House rules for a witness to say bad things about the President.
Which would be a real barrier to impeachment if the rules actually said that.
The poor guy who has to be the GOP counsel is testifying. He didn't have any facts or law on his side, so he went immediately to "pound the table".
drummerboy said:
you still didn't answer my question and you're avoiding the issue of what impeachment was meant for.
Congress voted for the Iraq War.
You can't then go back and impeach him for going to war.
Are you really gonna be this obtuse about it?
The articles that I listed called for impeachment based on falsification of evidence to create a pretext for starting a war. That's a High Crime.
A large majority of the House voted to send those articles and others to the Judiciary Committee.
Maybe you think "you can't go back" but a majority of the House thought "you can".
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're just engaging in another Facts-Don't-Matter exercise.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
Pelosi says she opposed impeaching Bush for starting the Iraq war because she didn't think it was impeachable.
https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1203881767901573120?s=20
um, didn't Congress kind of authorize the Iraq War? How can you possibly impeach him for that?
And that twitter thread - hooboy wotta bunch of nitwits. You hang out there often?
"Nitwits"? That's Katie Halper, who with Matt Taibbi hosts one of the most pro-Bernie internet programs.
Right, they are "pro-Bernie". Someone is obsessed.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info -
REVO luggage $100
More info
Bump