Self appointed impeachment "experts"??

Question

Seems that here is an abundance of libs who are self appointed legal experts, calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Do any of them have a clue what they are talking about? Isn't the proof "in the pudding"? IF there had indeed been an impeachable offense, wouldn't the Dem. politicians be all over it like flies on a rib roast?

Answer 1

No, they do not have a clue what they are talking about. It is just more of the witch hunt to undermine our President.

Answer 2

No. When Reagan's Iran-Contra scam came to the fore, Reagan personally asked Tip O'Neill if he would be impeached. The Tipster told him no - but the grounds were clearly there, and Reagan and everyone knew it.

You know GD well that impeachment is political - but there also has to be a constitutional basis for the charges. Politics and constitutional basis are BOTH necessary and sufficient for impeachment, but separate and apart, each is a necessary but INsufficient condition to impeach.

In the Reagan case, the second condition was present but not the first. In the Clinton case, the first condition was present but not the second.

Don't presume your own superiority of knowledge. It's quite unflattering.

Answer 3

if we could prove he started the war knowing the intellegence was bad he could be impeached. I believe the policies that violate the constitution have ground for impeachment. He could also be charged with war crimes.

but no one will impeach him.

1- he's almost gone

2- we'd feel ashamed for voting for him twice if he's being impeached

3- we'd have to admit we jumped on the war-wagon far to fast. which would bring up the fact that many accuse us of being to violent and too dependent on war/military action

Answer 4

It's true. But impeachment is in The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Thus far in the history of the United States there been three Presidential impeachment proceedings -- in 1868 against President Andrew Johnson for his removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act - 1974 against President Richard Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup (106 years after Johnson) - 1998-99 against President Bill Clinton for concealing an extramarital affair (24 years after Nixon).

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.
If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.
If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.
If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).
The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.
The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.
The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.
After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.
What we have is a lot of voting Americans who have seen first hand that the chimp is not following the laws of the land. How else can the American people get a corrupt and evil politicians who thinks he is above the law out on his ear???

Answer 5

Well, lets be fair about this, "libs" as you say would be experts on impeachment being that there was a witch hunt for Clinton in the same manor. So they are pretty familiar with the process.

Word for the executive branch: Accountability

I promise they never heard of it!!

Answer 6

Impeachment of President Bush will only give us Cheney

Answer 7

This question probably comes up at least 20 times a day by the 'uninformed' crowd and I've all but given up responding. It amazes me how many parrots jump in line to agree and voice their 'outrage'. Some of them even copy and paste what they feel are reasons for impeachment.

The third person in line is Nancy Pelosi and we all know that if Nancy could oust our President and Vice President, she'd be on it like a hot potato.

Oh well............... They'll never learn. Maybe we should make them take the bar exam?

Answer 8

It seems to me, considering the unfettered hate of Bush within Congressional ranks, that if they had grounds to impeach, they would.

I'm also pretty sure that they are looking diligently to find grounds.

.

Answer 9

I can't stand this Idiot King we call our "president." That said, impeachment is *not* a viable solution -- it should never be treated as a sort of low-blow "payback."

I think those who talk about impeachment are not interested in a united America, but are merely interested in tit-for-tat politics.

Answer 10

Great description, Mr. McCrevice, you have described George Bush and all his supporters PERFECTLY!

Answer 11

Sounds like you can include yourself in that tent.

We want an accounting of his actions. Since he refuses to cooperate with any oversight we are left with impeachment...