Do you need further proof for impeachment?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales

I mean, isn't an accusation of a member of Congress about a cabinet member sufficient to impeach the President? Thats a high crime, isn't it?

There is ample evidence in todays world to make any clear thinker highly pessimistic, like me.

Answer 1

Yes, and based on your knowledge and wherewithal, the Congress will listen to your pleas and act accordingly. After all, you're much better informed about everything than they are and they, like we, tune in daily to read what you have to say with blinded devotion.

Answer 2

Impeachment proceedings are not brought for two reasons. One is that they would take months to complete, and there are enough Republicans in Congress to prevent success via this route. They would claim political motives for the charges, so all the dirty laundry would have to be aired to gain more votes, and this is something no one wants to do. Second, such proceedings might cause Bush or Cheney to act abruptly, and it is hoped that quietly blocking them will continue as the status quo. Thus the contingent that is blocking Bush and Cheney feels they must select out some criminal activity, but not reveal all. Just when this will happen, or if it will happen at all, is in the hands of us and could go in many directions. Blocking Bush and Cheney may occur all the way until 2008 election puts new management in charge.

Answer 3

Sorry the Accused is held as no guilt till it is proved. That is the way the law works, I think that the first step is to openly ask the questions that need to be ask and get the answers that need to answered. One did the president lie to Congress, like Clinton did and was that lie one that was done to allow an abuse of power. Then you have the right to say that the President is guilt of high crimes.

Answer 4

So, a highly partisan hack like Leaky Leahy accuses a Bush appointee of not being fully forthright with the Democrat witchhunt, and that means the President should be impeached?

That's Gordian knot logic!

Answer 5

Impeachable...?


In 1999, Berger was criticized for failing to promptly inform President Clinton of his knowledge that the People's Republic of China had managed to acquire the designs of a number of U.S. nuclear warheads. Berger was originally briefed of the espionage by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in April 1996, but did not inform the president until July 1997.[6][7]

A number of Republicans, including then presidential hopeful Lamar Alexander, called for Berger's resignation. They accused him of ignoring the allegations of Chinese espionage. "For his unwillingness to act on this serious matter, Mr. Berger should resign", Alexander said. "If he does not, he should be relieved of his duties by President Clinton."[8] President Clinton rejected the calls: "The record is that we acted aggressively," Clinton said. "Mr. Berger acted appropriately."

Answer 6

Dude, I have no love for the current regime or this incident but people call for "impeachment" like they call for a "balk" at baseball games.

You see how you've set yourself up for severe flaming from the Bush supporters?

Answer 7

So what your saying is if the Attorney General commits a crime the the President can be impeached? Wow, who knew. I hope that no one that works for me commits a crime, I could lose my job.

Answer 8

Oh yes you are a real clear thinker all right. It must be that rectal view that clears your thinking so well. Yes I would need more proof.

Answer 9

So now the all powerful demos can't fulfill their promise to the American people ( is anyone surprised ) and they want to impeach "W". Guess what? they will fail you there too.

Answer 10

Does that mean that clinton could have been impeached for waco???....WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THAT!!