NEWS: Can We Impeach Now?

POLITICS: Can We Impeach Now?

I know, I know. There is no reason to impeach the president. It would be so bad for Democrats, the nation would be split and blah, blah, blah. Never mind that every day we seem to get more information about an insanely out of control White House. Like last week, when former White House press secretary Scott McClellan made a little boo boo.

Uh oh! That would be illegal. Turns out you can’t lie to federal investigators, and if this statement is true, then that is exactly what Bush did. When Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating the Plame leak, he questioned Bush. George
explained that he had directed Cheney to counter allegations made by Joe Wilson that the White House had lied about Iraq trying to acquire uranium. Bush also said he gave the order to disclose, “Highly classified information” that would “discredit Wilson.”

McClellan’s statement would mean that Bush LIED to Fitzgerald. Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators, because it is a FUCKING CRIME. An ex-White House press secretary just said that he “knowingly passed along false information” in order to confuse investigators. Here’s another example of someone committing the same crime: SCOOTER FUCKING LIBBY. Libby was charged with two counts of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI and one count of obstruction of justice – for covering up the same thing that Bush did. Holy shit! Now lets all sit on our ass!

Naturally, our wonderful media yawned and took a nap. I mean, shit, what is there to write about? The president was only just implicated in a crime. Although it’s not the first time someone has given us information that the president was involved. The first piece of evidence came from a guy named Dick Cheney in the form of a certain note he scribbled one day that was presented during Scooter Libby’s trial:

So, during Scooter Libby’s trial we learned this and now McClellan has backed it up with a statement. Is it conclusive? No. Should Congress open an impeachment investigation? Fuck yes.

McClellan, of course, retracted his statement.

Looks like someone got a few phone calls from people yelling, “You asshole, you just claimed the president committed a crime!”

Judges and lawyers take notice of public statements because they often turn out to be true. It’s the one that comes later, when you say, “But, but, I meant something else,” that is the lie. And in this case, the statement is corroborated by actual evidence presented during a trial. And what happened to that trial anyway?

Oh, right, a pardon. For a guy who could have avoided jail by squealing on…the president. Well, now, that is a big fucking crime, isn’t it?

But, I know, an impeachment investigation would be bad for Democrats. And that is really the greater good, isn’t it? Not the rule of law, but the rule of party.

He never should have been elected to begin with, he should have never been put into office when he clearly did not get the vote... Boy, do I even feel like ranting about this? So much to say on the issue and so little time to do it...oh and lied about important stuff, put us at war under false pretenses, has fucked our constitution up the ass constantly...boy the list gets kind of long.

Why the fuck can't we? Because how can you impeach a dictatorship?

I seem to remember something about lying to federal investigators being a big deal back in the Clinton days. Not so much anymore.
Actually, I think now it's only a crime ticket for a free rendition if you don't lie to cover the presidents ass.

I'm for more than impeachment. What Bush and Cheney did... the deliberate lies, the fabrication of "evidence" and the waging of an illegal war that has cost so many American (and Iraqi) lives; qualifies as high treason, a crime not protected by "executive priviledge."

I would like to see them tried for treason and then turned over to a world court for crimes against humanity. I would like to see them shoved in a hole so deep, that they never again see the light of day!

The thing is... even with all the evidence that has become public, our society as a whole has not risen up in outrage. I am perplexed by this... as I am by this administration rising to power in the first place. It seems America got what it wanted... and maybe what it deserves.

yeah, you'll get in more trouble speaking out against him than he and his administration ever will for the terrible things it's done. must be nice....

The president owns the U.S. Seriously. +1 on a good article, but no one has balls in this administration or congress.

Guys, they are not going to impeach him now. the next presidential election is in 2008, and the next president takes office in January 2009. They can't have an impeachment trial and all that whole process by then! ((roll eyes)) @ the idea of impeaching a president who terms out in 2008.

Plus, the main reason is that there is not enough of a majority in Congress to impeach the President.

Some of you young kids need to realize that our system is better than the Parliamentary system in which the majority party in Parliament automatically gets the Prime Minister (well in theory the Queen of England could appoint mickey mouse as prime minister, since the PM works for her, but she is supposed to appoint someone who has the support of Parliament). So in other words, Parliament never disagrees with the PM because they are always the same party. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew that this was a flawed system.

America has what is known as an adversarial system; the Congress checks the power of the President, the President checks the power of the Congress, and the Supreme Court checks both, they all check the power of all others. For example right now we have a Republican President, but a Democratic majority in Congress. You can't have that in a Parliamentary system.

In a parliamentary system you have to form "coalitions", lest you risk creating "instability". In the American system, you have a majority and a minority and they fight, and that's how legislation gets written. The President can veto, but his veto can be overridden with a 2/3 majority in Congress. In England, the Monarch can veto parliament, and Parliament has no recourse.

Of course, the Monarchy has not used that option in hundreds of years, but as the founding fathers said in The Federalist Papers, "because the King has not used a certain power does not mean he does not have it."

btw I was against the War in Iraq from day 1 -- though I do support what we did in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, and I do support bombing Pakistan and Iran -- and I was a Veteran for John Kerry for President. But this talk of impeaching the President when he's going to be replaced in a year is silly. He hasn't committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". Just because many of us disagreed with the war initially, and now a majority disagrees with the war, does not make it criminal. Congress gave the President permission in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, "the Congress shall have the Power...to declare War".

So really this is Hillary Clinton's war, since she voted for it in the Senate. I know that Kerry did too, but at the time we didn't have a viable alternative, now we do: Barack Obama and Ron Paul.

A vote for hillary is a vote to stay in Iraq since that's what she wants to do.

--Brian

not true.

Shut up and get off my lawn punk.


Oh and this . . .

is pure gold. Not really worth addressing but funny. You should be a comedian.

Ramblin' ramblin' man... Damn.

Anyhow, I think you're right off about the "high crimes and misdemeanors." Firstly, you put the cart before the horse. These crimes were committed, and those lies were told, expressly for the resultant "permission" (your word) from Congress. Even were that not true, no part of what Congress voted on gives the President status above the law. If it does, quote me verbatim or no points.

Secondly, war has not formally been declared, and for all my breath I can't understand why this keeps getting repeated. What Bush & Co. did/are doing/will have done is ILLEGAL, period.

Not to mention that we're talking about the Plame outting here.



Silly Brian, Reading Comprehension is for kids.

Come on, we're not that far down the road to fascism. Right now that only applies to brown people.

Worse, he failed to research his audience and gain valuable insight into their makeup, experience, vocations, avocations, and unwillingness to tolerate overarching generalizations that ignore both the value and shortcomings of our governmental structure as well as the importance of ensuring we remain a country of law.

He can't be impeached because the Republicans spent 100 mill to try and impeach Clinton and that was when the economy was good. Of course Bush has fucked up the economy so massive amounts of money can't be spent.

Also the Dems don't have the balls to impeach. They let Bush steal the 2000 election. Let their 04 candidate get raped.

The only hope would be to investigate Bush after his term. That too however is unlikely.

I lol'd.

Its true though, us Canadians are petrified that the Queen is going to veto everything we do.

Gotta love knee jerk, pseudo-intellectual insults.

Intarnetz FTW!

Fixt.

Are you a bad enough dude to impeach the president?

The President has been impeached by ninjas?

Of course we can't impeach him. He's only led us into an illegal war, lied about everything possible, took a shit on the constitution,fucked up the economy, and tried to intimidate the world. It's not like he got a blowjob from an intern.

i don't even know where to start your so wrong about this, I'm from australia, so i will be using australian examples however we and britan both us the westminster system so most things are the same (except the poms use titles like councilor of the exchequer rather than treasurer). Firstly typical American arrogance, did you ever stop and think that some of us who live in countries who's parliaments are based on the Westminster system quite like it and much prefer it to the usa's mess of a system (probably why it was rejected by a majority of Australians when we had a referendum in the 90's). Yes in the Westminster system far more power lies with the lower house (your congress) and therefore by extension the Prime minister. However first and foremost the Primeminister is not the executive he is simply the leader of the party that holds the majority of seats in the lower house, his powers can be greatly limited if his party does not have control of the upper house. The main differences between the westminster system and the USA system is that party who has the majority of seats in the lower house can select members of parliament (from both houses) to serve as ministers. These ministries cover policy areas, usually called portfolios, such as defense, arts, treasury and the environment. The ministers are then in charge of setting policy for their portfolio which includes the government bodies responsible for carrying out the governments policy in this area (eg. the Australian Taxation Office answers to the Treasuer, who is an elected member of parliment). Rather than having someone appointed by the President we get a say in who will head up our government apparatus (sounds like greater democracy to me). The prime minister is simply the leader of the parliament, he usually directly controls less of the government than most of the ministers however he sets direction for the government (though he is selected by his party so can be replaced if they are unhappy with him).

Secondly you do not have to form coalitions in the Westminster system, some party's do however as they do not have enough seats to claim a majority to form government them selves so align themselves with another party with similar policy so that they do. No one outsides of these parties has to do anything that the prime minister says and in Australia the largest opposition party gets money from the government to form a shadow cabinet (the ministers as a whole are know as a cabinet) who's job it is to question their ruling parties ministers.

The only real power that the prime minister in Australia has that the British one doesn't is that he gets to select the queens representative in Australia, called the governor general who signs all bills into law.

In Australia, the senate checks the power of the lower house, the governor general checks both houses (usually a ceremonial role though one governor general did kick out the ruling party in the 70's) and the federal court of Australia checks them all. By not having an elected head of state like your president we have a streamlined and more effective system that doesn't have to homogenize every bill down so that it can pass a head of state from a different party. We vote for the party that we want to govern in the lower house. Usually a third party (as of last saturday the Greens) controls the balance of power in the senate so that the party controlling the lower house usually has to negotiate its bills through the senate so they can't be to extreme (this backfired for our until recently conservative government who won control of the senate at the election before last, started passing some extreme industrial relations laws and promptly lost the next election and control of both houses).

Given George W's actions over the last 8 years i would personally prefer for his powers to lie with a prime minister who not only answers to his own party (who can get rid of him the next day if they are unhappy with him) but is also at threat of members of his party joining the opposition if less than a majority of his party is unhappy with him (which has happened in the past). Also all ministers are present for question time and can easily be asked some very tough questions by the opposition. Imagine what the world might have been like over the last 8 years if G.W. Bush was so easy to get rid of.

Also the queen is unlikely to exert her powers (or the governor general in Australia) as the parliament has a habit of stripping their powers and place further every time they do so.

also what is up with Americans treating everything the "founding fathers" said like the voice of god.

Dunno.
What's up with defensive Aussies freaking the fuck out and writing a manifesto over a little spilt n00b barf ?