Hey, cons, why hasn't Bush had the military go get her and bring her back to face charges? It's within his authority. He's the President. He is OBLIGATED because of his Oath of Office to punish traitors ("defend and uphold the Constitution"). Why hasn't he done it? And if your answer is "He's appeasing the libs," shouldn't he be impeached for letting TREASON go just to "appease the libs"?????
Holy cow, guys, this is MAJOR. The President of the United States is failing to punish a known TRAITOR!
What are you going to do about it?
2007-04-05 09:16:56 · 19 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
kapute: So you endorse the President letting a traitor go. And you call yourself an American. Unreal.
2007-04-05 09:24:17 · update #1
bereal1: Great! So why isn't Bush doing anything about it? PATRIOT Act lets him; why is he opting not to exercise this Executive privilege? Too busy selling ambassadorships, I guess...
2007-04-05 09:28:29 · update #2
kenny j: Suggestion: Learn to recognize sarcasm.
2007-04-05 09:32:56 · update #3
Lol! The batties will have trouble with that one. "she's consorting with terrorists" or more moronic rhetorical Rushisms.
2007-04-05 09:20:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
First why is Nancy a traitor?
I have copied the Constitution on what a traitor is:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Funny thing is Nancy didn't commit a treasonous act.
Suggestion: think for yourself for once.
2007-04-05 09:32:11 · answer #2 · answered by kenny J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, why would she be charged with treason? I don't care for the woman that much personally, but she's done nothing that would constitute treason, unless she was selling them classified documents (oh wait, Sandy Berger stole all of those). Her visit did not go over as well as she hoped from what I understand, but I wouldn't call that a crime either.
I got the impression the visit was done partially to irk Republicans, but then that's never been illegal either, has it?
2007-04-05 09:30:38 · answer #3 · answered by Souris 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree whole heartily with you... In fact, according to the Constitution a lot of the Dem leaders could be tried!!!!
* Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.*
Didn't the Dem's just announce there are No terrorist.. How comforting!!!!!!!
hey I agree !!! I don't like his immigration crap either... Another thing, why hasn't Harry Reid or Jefferson been investigated or arrested??? What about Murtha???? What about Pelosi and her daughters anti-christian documentary, don't hear about that either... The way I look at it, he's out on 2008 grow some balls and get some heads rolling and some subpoenas sent!!!
2007-04-05 09:23:58 · answer #4 · answered by bereal1 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
i do in contrast to Nanci Pelosi, i'm going to leap out and say that first. in spite of the fact that, i do no longer think of this quantities to treason. She could maximum in all probability declare that she replaced into attempting to help the U.S. and it may a substantial $#$#& hurricane attempting to tutor her purpose in any different case. additionally, she replaced into no longer forbidden to bypass, she replaced into asked to no longer bypass. vast distinction. i do no longer think of it replaced right into a clever circulate, even along with her place because of fact SHE can't communicate FOR THE PRESIDENT. except the president himself asked her to bypass on his behalf, which he did no longer, then she would be able to make no assurances or grants on the subject of the U.S. remote places coverage. This boils right down to no longer something extra desirable than a public family members stunt that i think of won't serve Nancy properly. A Senator undermining The President of the united states for in spite of reason, no matter what you have faith, is interior the worst available style.
2016-10-21 03:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What treason? It's firmly within Constitutional authority for members of Congress to participate in and even initiate discussions with recognized foreign leaders. Further, it's the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to establish budgets and to declare and undeclare war.
Besides, since when does Bush care about or even understand the Constitution? Signing statements, NSA wiretaps without FISA, black prisons, extraordinary rendition... it doesn't stop with that guy.
What is your major malfunction?
p.s. Aren't you the dude who coined the word "Republiecans" a few weeks ago? What's your game?
2007-04-05 09:22:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
She is not being a traitor especially since she has both reps and dems with her. She needs to find out things because apparently King Bush is not making progress on foreign policy as usual. Thank God he doesn't have much time left to screw up.
2007-04-05 09:23:02 · answer #7 · answered by Beverly H 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
And what about Republican Congressman Issa--who met with Syrian leaders today--the exact same thing Pelosi is doing? Why aren't the cons calling him nasty names?
2007-04-05 09:36:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe just vote the dems out in '08. as long as she is not trying to set policy she is within the law. many rep and dems have been to the middle east to countries that our president and others would rather them stay out of for several reasons. but, mr. bush cannot compel her as long as she stays aways from policy making and speaking on behalf of the US. i think she is just trying to get her ducks in a row just in case the dems win in '08. not a bad idea but i don't understand how she can deal one on one with a leader who supports true terrorism. i am sure she is doing what she thinks is best,but don't we all."the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
2007-04-05 09:26:43 · answer #9 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nancy proved to be the one that wear the pants in deplomacy.. Bush got none..
Pelosi is only a trator to NEOCONS.. thats a good thing.
She is serving the US and laying the grounds to regain US soveregnty ove our INTERESTS from zionists!
2007-04-05 09:21:59 · answer #10 · answered by WO LEE 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Even foreign govts no longer view Bush as the leader of this country. They are dealing directly with Nancy now. Sucks eh cons?
2007-04-05 09:20:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋