"Impeaching Bill Clinton was a black mark on our history. Not against him. Against us."

[omega minimo]

“Author John Nichols stated recently that we do not “impeach a man” and that the question of impeachment should not be centered on George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Rather impeachment is a tool to insure the balance of powers and to hold those who abuse those powers accountable and it is the Congress’ responsibility to serve in the country’s best interest by protecting and upholding that balance.

“Twenty years ago, we allowed a president to circumvent the legislative body by illegally funding a war that Congress had cut funding for. Top government officials sold arms to a member of the so called “axis of evil” in order to fund terrorist rebels and then lied to Congress about it. The members of Congress and the media convinced the country to allow a dangerous precedent to be set by taking no action against this grab for power and rejection of accountability in order to “protect” the citizenry from having to endure another Watergate. The inaction against those involved with Iran/Contra was a coup for people like Dick Cheney who would later strive for even more executive powers never intended for such leaders.

“And now, twenty years later, this country faces an abuse of executive powers like never before, the likes of which the founding fathers feared to such a degree that they instituted the very same powers of impeachment that the Democrats now cower away from. The American people see this - we do “get it.” That’s one of the reasons why Democrats find themselves back in power.

“Impeachment is not about Republicans and Democrats. Impeachment was never meant to be a form of “gotcha politics”...Impeachment is not about vindication, but rather a validation that the principles of the balance of power will remain secure. If the crimes and abuses of power by the president and the vice president are allowed to continue with no accountability, then where might we find ourselves twenty years from now?”

--W. David Jenkins III

**please note the same gang of unaccountable Constitutional criminals from paragraph 2 are being reintroduced into the current White House and the War On Iraq.



"Americans Can't Handle Another Impeachment" Is Republican Propaganda. Don't Be Deceived.” The truth is Americans CAN handle another impeachment. They CAN handle the truth. In fact, if Americans don't bring Bush and Cheney to justice after the atrocities they've committed, this nation will never reclaim its moral authority. And the people of this nation will be despised for unleashing these dangerous men on the world.

"Americans can't handle another impeachment" isn't a truth. It's a device. Like 'weapons of mass destruction.' 'A mushroom cloud.' 'Gassed his own people.' 'Sought significant quantities of uranium from A-f-r-i-c-a.' These are the sound bytes, the parroted propaganda, which brought us to war. Each is a proven lie, told time and again by well-rehearsed pundits. Verbatim delivery. Robotic form. Repeated ad nauseam by grown-up children of the damned...

“...What shocked the world most about Bill Clinton's impeachment was that he was ever impeached at all. It made a farce of our political system, and our values. Americans appeared petty and juvenile. Unable to distinguish between what was crucial to good governance and what was not. Impeaching Bill Clinton was a black mark on our history. Not against him. Against us.

“But impeaching George W. Bush will be constructive for America and Americans. It will be educational. Americans will watch the proceedings and learn about the Constitution. They'll receive a long overdo lesson on the Constitutional responsibilities of their President, the balance of powers, and gain a clearer understanding of their own rights and freedoms. Americans will acquire an insight into proper governance to make them better stewards of their democracy.”

--Linda Milazzo

both quotes: http"//www.afterdowningstreet.org

[Blue Fire]

1. Power and Money.....

not to mention some peoples addiction to propaganda. Silence them and the impeachments will happen.

[omega minimo]

5. "In mah line o' werk, ya gotta CATAPULT the Prop-a-gan-duh"

"Americans can't handle another impeachment" isn't a truth. It's a device. Like 'weapons of mass destruction.' 'A mushroom cloud.' 'Gassed his own people.' 'Sought significant quantities of uranium from A-f-r-i-c-a.' These are the sound bytes, the parroted propaganda, which brought us to war. Each is a proven lie, told time and again by well-rehearsed pundits. Verbatim delivery. Robotic form. Repeated ad nauseam by grown-up children of the damned..."

“But impeaching George W. Bush will be constructive for America and Americans. It will be educational. Americans will watch the proceedings and learn about the Constitution....Americans will acquire an insight into proper governance to make them better stewards of their democracy.”

[catzies]

2. I recall reading somewhere Henry Hyde said it was payback for Nixon

Those elephants and their long memories.

They also meant to debase impeachment so it couldn't be used against them when they regained power.

Likewise the lapse of the Independent Counsel statute.

[omega minimo]

7. as well as justification for spending BRAZILLIONS (& time) on Clinton fishing expeditions

but your final 2 points are MOST IMPORTANT!

Thank you. :hi:

[orpupilofnature57]

3. And us not Impeaching shrub makes Dem's guilty of enabling once again..

....sake of continuity.

[omega minimo]

8. OLLIE NORTH IS NOT A HERO!!!!!!!!111

:HI:

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Another Misanthrope MSM tried to make a hero!!

[jannyk]

4. Impeachment is not an option - it's a duty nt

[Solo_in_MD]

6. What about his disbarment?

[omega minimo]

10. VGPTY

Very Good Point Thank You

:yourock:

[B Calm]

14. I don't think it matters at all whether it was technically perjury.

It was a charge that was immoral to bring, it was an investigation that was immoral, based on ulterior political motives, not justice. That said, it was wrong to disbar him!

[omega minimo]

17. oh- I assumed they meant the DISBARMENT WAS BULLSHIT TOO!!!!!!!!!1

:blush:

[B Calm]

51. It was all BULLSHIT!

[ProfessorGAC]

48. It Wasn't Technically Perjury, Though

It was a lie under oath, but to be perjury the mie has to bear materiality on the case. There was no materiality ever established. Since the Jones case was a Civil Rights Violation Case (it was not a Sexual Harassment case, no matter what the radical right says), his sexual history was immaterial. So, the disbarment was based upon a "wrist-slapping" for lying under oath, even though no crime was committed.

I think it is EXTREMELY obvious that it was wrong to disbar him. He didn't break any law.
The Professor

[B Calm]

9. President Clinton’s Legacy:

A brave man that wouldn’t resign, but instead stood up and stared into the face of vindictive, corrupt, hypocritical, political right-wing smear mongers who tried and failed to undermine democracy.

[omega minimo]

13. Well Dayum! There It IS!!!!!!

:applause:


If only just ONE person at that bogus hearing in the Senate Chambers had turned to The Camera and given a big MIDDLE FINGER! What a load of SHIT that that video of pomp and bogusness will live down the centuries.................................................................

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. To this day

I wish Pres. Clinton and every other Democrat would have said the following about the Lewinsky scandal: It's none of your damn business.

That's it. Case closed. That's all that ever needed to be said about it. That's all I've ever said when it's been brought up to me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. Damn skippy

He showed them what "is" is! :woohoo:

[Senator]

43. Perhaps a bit more... like ...

... a N. Ireland Parliament, peace in the Balkans, a casualty-free NATO win in Kosovo, containment of Saddam, N. Korea and S. Korea summit talks and marching together at the Olympics, a defacto Palestinian state, first budget supluses since 60s, national debt elimination plan, tripled value of the stock market, record unemployment lows, sustained interest rate lows, Family Leave, 100K cops, 100K teachers, record reductions in crime, legal victories over Big Tobacco and Microsoft, teenage pregnancy lows, the Brady Bill...

...just to recall a few.

--

[porphyrian]

11. Got to kick this. - n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

12. K&R'd

[tanyev]

15. The last impeachment was the one I couldn't handle.

An impeachment right now would be music to my ears.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Ain't Gonna Happen. Novel Concept, But Ain't Gonna Happen.

Maybe we should focus our energies on those things we actually CAN accomplish while the majority in congress.

Thankfully, I've read many things about the Democrats' future plans for legislation and action once we take control, and I'm damn proud of those things. We are going to prove to the American people that we can legislate and do so with their best interests at heart, and that we can better protect them as well. We will put our money where our mouths are and re-open the doors of Congress. We will offer checks and balances and and work diligently to make the lives of average Americans better. We will do our best to keep bush in check and our best to reverse some of his unbelievably damaging policies. We will offer financial responsibility while addressing many of the social issues that the republican congress has completely ignored.

But we're not going to impeach. It just ain't gonna happen. The sooner some folks can realize that the sooner we can focus on the true challenges our next Congress faces.

Impeachment would be nice. But it's a daydream. I prefer to live in reality. In reality, impeachment is quite simply just not going to happen. Furthermore, impeachment shouldn't even be up for discussion yet, since that would and could only come after legitimate investigations. Going into the investigations with the already determined premise that the result is to impeach makes us conceptually every single bit as bad as bush in the Downing Street Memos.

The next congress has a staggering amount of real work that needs to be accomplished, and they will do many many things we're going to be proud of them for. Impeachment is not going to be one of them, sorry.

[omega minimo]

18. Like you care

"Impeachment would be nice."


:puke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. As Much As Anyone Else Does. Not Sure Why You Felt The Need For False Premise Animosity.

And please see a doctor about your gastrointestinal issues. Spontaneous vomiting without any legitimate catalyst is something that should be checked by a professional.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. No I Won't Go Away, And I Don't Know Who You Are To Think You Have The Standing To Say Such A Thing.

Furthermore, you have again done nothing but personally attack me while not addressing a single contextual point in my reply. Your animosity is unwarranted and baseless.

Every word I spoke is true, as always. Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant to me. What would be nice is if you actually showed the ability to have a discussion instead of immediately degenerating into a personal attack mode.

[omega minimo]

23. Get Thee Behind Me

:evilfrown:

I did not attack you, I told you to go away. I have enough "standing" to say "I don't believe a word you say." Your disingenuous post speaks for itself.

"Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant to me." Wow :wow: sounds kinda like me telling you I don't care what you think!


"What would be nice is if you actually showed the ability......" to stay the fuck away from me........ :buhbye:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. I Would Like To Inquire If You Can Push Pause On The Attack Mode For A Moment And Provide

any substance at all to your assertion that my original reply was disingenuous in any manner whatsoever.

My reply was a sincere personal viewpoint in response to your OP and if you are going to twist it and trash it I think it would be at least even minimally respectful to the concept of honest discussion to provide any reasoning behind your animosity towards it.

I think I made perfectly fine points in my reply. I ask that you show any legitimate reason to bolster a claim that it wasn't genuine or of sound logic.

Anyone can issue attacks for sake of attacks if they wanted to. It shows far more legitimacy when an attack can actually be supported with a counter-argument that provides evidence or reasoning to the dissent. If you're going to attack me personally while tearing apart my reply, can you at least offer any insight as to what parts of it were problematic? That might be helpful.

Thanks. :hi:

[omega minimo]

32. No Means No

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Hopefully Next Time You'll Think Twice Before A Knee-Jerk Attack That You Can't Defend.

Goodnight.

[omega minimo]

38. What part of Get Thee Behind Me don't YOU understand?

:evilfrown:


KISS Stay Away

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. My Posts Are Not The Ones Doing The Attacking While Ignoring Context Altogether.

I presented a reasonable argument of which you chose to ignore and offered knee jerk personal attack and animosity instead. I have only asked that you refrain from personal attack and either respond to the context of my reply or offer reasoning as to why you have chosen to smear me and my post. You immediately got personal and have yet to offer any insight into what you disagree with in my original post. You have repeatedly attacked me and my reply without any justification or substance to lend credibility to your position. Until you do so, your attacks are baseless and without any merit.

So no, I won't get behind you nor should I. The onus is on you to refrain from attack and discuss your position or your disagreement with my position in a civil manner. It is not inappropriate for me to ask you to do so, nor is it inappropriate for me to request that if you are to attack me or my post, that you provide even the slightest explanation for having done so.

There was no reason for you to have attacked me like you have and there was not a thing wrong with my reply to your OP.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. You are my new best friend.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. .

:hug:

[petgoat]

31. The "Novel Concept" gives you away. What's novel about it?

Then you go:

"Ain't Gonna Happen.... Ain't Gonna Happen.... It just ain't gonna happen....impeachment is quite simply just not going to happen..... {Congress} will do many many things we're going to be proud of them for. Impeachment is not going to be one of them, sorry."

Are you a poster or a hypnotist? You are getting very very sleepy.... It is... It is.... It is...
It is gonna happen

What's to investigate? Are Bush's high crimes, committed right out in the open and
documented in the news media, honestly invisible to you? All we need to do is read
what we already know into the record.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Ain't Gonna Happen. And There Is Much To Investigate.

There has not been one real investigation yet into their crimes. It's about time we have them, and thankfully now that we've taken control we can finally do so.

But there have been no subpoenas or on the record testimony about many of these issues yet whatsoever. Until that happens and facts are presented that show an indisputable case for impeachment, impeachment shouldn't even be up for discussion.

Like I said, you have investigations first, then weigh the evidence and use it in a bi-partisan manner to see if impeachment is warranted. You don't start with a definitive conclusion of impeachment, and then go through investigations just for show. To do so is to perpetrate a fraud on the American people just like bush did with the iraq war as can be seen by the DSM.

[omega minimo]

39. Absolute Mindfucking Bullshit

"There has not been one real investigation yet into their crimes"

http://www.downingstreetminutes.org

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Congressional Investigation. Legitimate Investigation. Under Oath Investigation.

By an overwhelming majority we here believe there is just cause for impeachment. But impeachment isn't about DU, it is about first proving that case to the American people as a whole through legitimate under oath congressional investigations that expose the truth about the many criminal things this administration has done. Only after such investigations take place and a solid case presented to the American people as a whole, should talk of impeachment even be taking place.

Like I've repeatedly said: To already have impeachment decided prior to any real congressional investigations taking place is every bit of a fraud on the American people as the concepts behind the DSM to begin with.

We here may know exactly what those investigations will yield. Maybe there will be things exposed we didn't know. But the point is providing that evidence through a legitimate vehicle to the American people. If you can't understand that or comprehend why, then I feel for you.

[petgoat]

52. If it ain't gonna happen, why bother to investigate?

And who's entering into the process with an impure conception of its outcome?

Explain again your logical context? It makes no sense to me.

I am not a crook. I am NOT a crook. I am not a CROOK! I am not, no way, a crook.
Uh-uh. No.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. You Are Too Funny:

"If it ain't gonna happen, why bother to investigate?"

Because whether impeachment occurs or not there still needs to be checks and balances as well as disclosure and awareness as to the things that have been perpetrated. Not impeaching doesn't mean things can't be fixed, exposed or others brought to justice. And if the investigations yield enough, maybe the public would be enraged enough to demand impeachment. But as it stands right now it is highly unlikely to occur. But it would be utterly foolish and silly to throw away the value of the investigations merely because it may not end in impeachment.


"And who's entering into the process with an impure conception of its outcome?"

That's the part that literally made me laugh out loud. It was too funny. You say:

"If it ain't gonna happen, why bother to investigate?" followed by: "And who's entering into the process with an impure conception of its outcome?".

I mean, do you not see the absolute contradiction and hilarious lack of logic in that? Who's entering into the process with an impure conception of its outcome? You are. You just said it yourself. You basically just said the only reason to investigate is if we can impeach afterwards. So silly.

Fact is, there has not yet been any legitimate two-sided thorough Congressional investigations to yield evidence that would stand up in the court of public opinion. Until that happens, talk about impeachment is completely premature. Even afterwards, the concept of impeachment would still be a long-shot at best, and only possible if the public outcry is such to demand it.

I'd love the glib satisfaction of seeing that fucker removed from office. I just don't see it as feasible reality right now and there are many other important things we need to tackle that won't be nearly as futile. We have a lot to prove to the American people if we are to maintain our majority and seek the presidency in 08. I have zero doubt that we can prove those things and that we can show how many good things can be done when we are running the show. But an impeachment process prior to mounting enough solid irrefutable evidence, obtained through official subpoena and congressional power, and presented to the american people in such a way that the public as a majority demands the impeachment, is nothing short of a futile exercise that will most certainly destroy whatever momentum we have built and hand the majority right back over to the republicans; where once again there will be no checks and balances and the amazingly damaging policies can once again be thrown around without resistance. And I'll be damned if I'm ready to forsake all we've gained for a futile effort.

Investigations first. Subpoena power. Real testimony. Real two-sided facts and disclosure. Full case made that is so solid that the public almost demands his removal. Only then will I support honest discussions of initiating impeachment.

[omega minimo]

55. "Checks and balances," the "balance of powers" are between 3 Branches, not 2 Parties

"...a futile exercise that will most certainly destroy whatever momentum we have built and hand the majority right back over to the republicans; where once again there will be no checks and balances and the amazingly damaging policies can once again be thrown around without resistance."

"Because whether impeachment occurs or not there still needs to be checks and balances as well as disclosure and awareness as to the things that have been perpetrated."


from this OP:

“Author John Nichols stated recently that we do not “impeach a man” and that the question of impeachment should not be centered on George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Rather impeachment is a tool to insure the balance of powers and to hold those who abuse those powers accountable and it is the Congress’ responsibility to serve in the country’s best interest by protecting and upholding that balance."

<>

“Impeachment is not about Republicans and Democrats. Impeachment was never meant to be a form of “gotcha politics”...Impeachment is not about vindication, but rather a validation that the principles of the balance of power will remain secure. If the crimes and abuses of power by the president and the vice president are allowed to continue with no accountability, then where might we find ourselves twenty years from now?”

--W. David Jenkins III



“...What shocked the world most about Bill Clinton's impeachment was that he was ever impeached at all. It made a farce of our political system, and our values. Americans appeared petty and juvenile. Unable to distinguish between what was crucial to good governance and what was not. Impeaching Bill Clinton was a black mark on our history. Not against him. Against us.

“But impeaching George W. Bush will be constructive for America and Americans. It will be educational. Americans will watch the proceedings and learn about the Constitution. They'll receive a long overdo lesson on the Constitutional responsibilities of their President, the balance of powers, and gain a clearer understanding of their own rights and freedoms. Americans will acquire an insight into proper governance to make them better stewards of their democracy.”

--Linda Milazzo

both quotes: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org




This OP, the linked thread in #34, the various links there, and other sources will provide plenty for anyone who wants a better understanding of impeachment and the process of investigation, hearings, indictment in the House and trial in the Senate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Your Reply Shows That You Completely Missed The Point Of My Post.

All you did was copy and paste the same stuff you did to begin with, without taking any of my accurate points into consideration. Anyone can cut and paste other people's words, but I'd be curious to hear your own defense instead of somebody else's. If you believe in the point so strongly you should be able to debate it with your own thoughts, not the thoughts of another. But even the copy and paste has nothing relevant to do with the points I raised.

First off, I have stated numerous times the reality that until legitimate two-sided official congressional investigations take place impeachment is not even up for discussion. You can't call for impeachment prior to such legitimacy even having taken place, as to do so would be completely reckless, irresponsible, futile and ignorant. I have repeated multiple times that firmly calling for impeachment prior to such investigations makes us as bad in premise as bush when he deceived the american people by pretending that he was trying for diplomacy in Iraq, while he already knew firmly the war would take place. You've heard of the downing street memos, correct? Well if you already conclude that we are to impeach him, before fair, thorough and official investigations have even occurred, then you are guilty of the same disgraceful tactic since the investigations would then just be a ruse.

With something as important and dramatic to our nation as impeachment, both sides MUST have the opportunity to present evidence and defense, and those things MUST be done under oath. It is a serious process with serious consequences and there are some serious protocols that should be followed. I know we all strongly believe with good reason already that he has committed several impeachable offenses. But that's irrelevant to this argument, as the country does not revolve around our small group. Without first having real investigations where the participants are under oath and all sides have the opportunity to present their case, there is nothing substantial to present to congress or the American public to gain the support and awareness necessary to impeach at all. Without the official congressional investigations, there is ZERO legitimacy to the calls. The act would go down in history as every bit as partisan, irresponsible and illegitimate as what they pulled on President Clinton. I'm not sure why you are so willing to undermine your own cause by wanting such.

And as far as checks and balances go, we have them back already once we take control in January. That in and of itself will put a huge damper on his ability to cause further damage. Impeachment is NOT the only way to show existence of the three equal but separate branches of government. Such a claim would be rooted in sheer ignorance.

And yes, of course impeachment should be non-partisan and not about one party or the other. Of course it is of far greater importance. But to think you can have a successful impeachment without first getting support from the American public, and more importantly from Congress itself, you are immensely misguided in the reality of how it all works.

It might be so easy for you to copy and paste the words of others and portray this nice little idealistic notion that we must stand on honor and conviction and defend the constitution by impeaching the president; not because of politics but because of necessity to maintaining the vision of the constitution, but after stepping out of the dreamland bubble one would then realize that in actual reality such a thing is not so easy. In fact, it currently is near impossible and almost certainly futile. You can state through other's words all you want that we MUST impeach blah blah blah, but how exactly are you going to pull it off without enough members in the House and Senate supporting it? You think they're going to do it because they read some post on DU? You think the process is that easy?

You can talk about impeachment all you want till you're blue in the face. You can paste other people saying as often as you wish that we must impeach for this reason that reason etcetera etcetera. Saying it is easy. Anyone can say it. Making it happen is gonna be a bit more challenging. The only way it's going to happen is through thorough and legitimate congressional investigations; during which such evidence comes to surface that the majority of congress members would be calling for the immediate impeachment and the American public would be demanding it as well. And guess what: We ain't anywhere even close to such things occurring yet. The calls for impeachment right now are just empty clarion calls filled with futility and prematurity. Saying 'impeach now' carries no validity or reality behind it. It's just lip service.

We have a great new congress in January, and many great things we are to accomplish. Part of that will be investigations into some serious abuse of power. Who knows what those investigations will yield and what case can be made to the American people. What I do know is that until that time comes, talk of impeachment is just the talk of fools, as it is declaring an action not sound in reality and that is bound to utterly fail. With luck, maybe the investigations will in fact yield such an enormous mountain of facts that the public and congressional outcry will be so great that impeachment then becomes viable. I'm not holding my breath with that, but who knows. All I do know is that the ONLY way to get there is by holding serious, thorough and legitimate congressional investigations during which an end result of impeachment is not yet determined. I will repeat again, that until that takes place, talk of impeachment is completely premature and misguided.

[omega minimo]

57. The info provided will help clarify terms and the process while folks discuss this

For anyone who is interested in being better informed. There are many terms (including impeachment) and concepts about this process that are being thrown around incorrectly. What that does is create lengthy discussions on misguided hair-splitting over WORDS not actions.

There is no disagreement that there needs to be hearings and investigations. (Potential) impeachment is part of the process and misusing the word to argue about it endlessly is a BIG FAT RED HERRING.

The info was presented generically for anyone interested and in hopes of eliminating the opportunity for you to feel antagonized-- yet you seem to ever come up with ways to do that.

If you were serious about discussion, you would not constantly antagonize and drive DUers to Ignore you or tell you "Go Away" and refuse to even attempt discussion.

If you think antagonistic debate is the only was to converse, you need to look elsewhere.

[petgoat]

59. Maybe if you didn't hide it so well, your point would be clear

With luck, maybe the investigations will in fact yield such
an enormous mountain of facts that the public and congressional
outcry will be so great that impeachment then becomes viable.
I'm not holding my breath with that, but who knows.

You can't see that Bush's impeachible offenses are plain as day,
and you doubt that even rigorous and diligent investigation
can uncover them. Baloney. Bush's high crimes are obvious to
anyone who reads the newspapers. We don't need a Patrick
Fitzgerald or an Elliot Ness.

[petgoat]

58. Too Funny

Not impeaching doesn't mean things can't be fixed

Not impeaching means that Bush's actions stand as precedents for every
president in the future. "Bush did it, so I'm doing it too."

Only impeachment draws a line around Bush's actions. "Bush did it and
got impeached; you can't do that."

You basically just said the only reason to investigate is if we can
impeach afterwards. So silly.

Your belief that you can deduce my position through analysis of a question
attempting to explore an inconsistency in your position is is, well...
silly.

[Rex]

22. Congress lost the will to govern back in the 1980s.

Today is lobbywhorefest, 24/7 on the Hill. Business as usual.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Americans Can't Handle Another Impeachment" Is Republican Propaganda. Don't Be Deceived

Amen to that. Another common trope is the "You guys just want to get back at them for the Clinton impeachment!" Bullshit. And if some wingnuts think that, I'm okay with it. I think the latest polls show that more Americans support impeaching Bush than supported impeaching Clinton.

[omega minimo]

33. Anyone who says "You guys just want to get back at them for the Clinton impeachment!"

doesn't know what they're talking about. It's not "okay" if they think that, it's completely mis/un/informed.

That's the REAL problem with the Clinton impeachment-- IT WAS A LOAD OF HORSESHIT from start to finish.


:hi:

[bleever]

30. Recommended, for adding substance to the discussion.

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

34. Got substance if ya want it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2830486&mesg_id=2830486

:toast:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

37. Brilliant. K and R Thank you for the post.

[bleever]

46. Already

added a link to that in a response I made in H2O Man's thread about the rise of American democracy.

:toast:

[omega minimo]

47. very good

:bounce:

[Erika]

42. The right wingers went after Clinton from Day One

They felt the WH belonged to them. They spent over 60 mill to persecute Clinton and look what they came up with. Pathetic.

[porphyrian]

45. I'll kick this again. - n/t

[suston96]

49. The impeachment inquiry is the thing....

Y'all watch any criminal justice TV shows? Lots of them around. Ever watch cases where police and prosecutors bring charges and even secure indictments on cases for which they know they cannot win convictions?

Well, Bush, Cheney could be impeached. There are enough votes in the House. There are not enough votes (so far) in the Senate to convict and remove them from office.

What Bush and Cheney (and maybe others) have done is commit "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in whatever meanings can be attached to that phrase. What are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? Well ask any Republican involved with the Clinton impeachment: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are whatever the House of Representatives say they are.

Let the impeachment inquiry begin. What we need is an indictment of these men and their actions so that their infamies against the American people can be forever enshrined in history's hall of shame.

[omega minimo]

50. Investigate all 5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2830486&mesg_id=2834380

[leesa]

54. The entire point of impeaching Clinton was to make the argument that people would

be too 'impeachment-fatigued' to impeach Dubya. Worked rather well, didn't it?