Results 81 to 89 of 89
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
02-10-2007, 04:21 PM #81
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by gofer
-
02-11-2007, 08:42 PM #82
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 376
Unless there is a clearly defined Constitutional charge and an absolute and verifiable reason, I'm not going for it. (Yes, I was being a sarcastic smart ass earlier.)
Lets try high crimes and misdemeanors, What Starr was finally able to do was manipulate Clinton into testifying under oath and bingo he lied.
After coercing Bush to swear in, the right line of questioning could produce the discovery needed to impeach for perjury just like his predecessor, if he lies. If he tells the truth, he could be nailed for his actions outright.
We all know the Pres. has stooped pretty low in advancing his agenda, just not letting him weasel out of testifying under oath I think would be the hard part.
Of course getting a special prosecutor appointed wouldn't be easy either.
-
02-12-2007, 07:29 PM #83
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by Sovereign
-
02-12-2007, 10:35 PM #84
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 376
If I'm not mistaken, Clinton's perjury did not arise in his deposition to Kenneth Starr, but rather in a sexual harrassment lawsuit before an actual judge. I believe that it was simply a matter of Kenneth Starr's investigation proving that Clinton had perjured himself.
A Pres. released from duty for at least in part not fulfilling his oath of office would send a signal loud and clear that no matter who you are the Constitution is indeed the highest law of the land and that "We the People" are still very relevant.
Cheney would try to advance the same policies but he would think twice about it and our say in political affairs would gain in power.
I'm not saying it's likely, just possible.
-
02-12-2007, 10:47 PM #85
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by Sovereign
-
02-12-2007, 11:31 PM #86
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 376
Well, I don't happen to think that it is possible, particularly in the amount of time remaining in Bush's term. I do think that an embattled Bush, unlike Clinton, would press his agenda that much harder rather than being paralyzed.
I'm positive that if the light of day fell on his dealings that Americans (among other issues of course) would demand the dollar system be fixed so we can pay off our debts and not go into a recession at the same time.
The must grow to survive method of debt economics is a huge player in the open borders scheme. No nation can grow forever.
-
02-12-2007, 11:34 PM #87
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Texas
- Posts
- 3,663
Originally Posted by Sovereign
-
02-13-2007, 01:41 AM #88
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- California
- Posts
- 376
Your presumption assumes that the agenda goes no further than Bush and his immediate cronies. I submit that such thinking would be a false assumption. Furthermore, if you are hoping to shine the light of day on said aganeda, you are crazy for thinking that Congress would do such a thing. Far too many of the key players in Congress are party to that agenda, which is what I have been trying to explain in this thread.
But then the best vacuum cleaner salesman in the world was impeached.
He's just such a sorry sack of crap that he refused to leave office for the good of the country.
I might be crazy, but at the same time enough high crimes and misdemeanors, add a few liberals and an investigation could start.
The Pres. is not invulnerable and he has a lot of political enemies who froth at the mouth when impeachment is talked about. Don't underestimate the vehement hate that left has for the Pres.
I think Pelosi would in a heartbeat (my opinion) if she didn't think the V.P. would be worse for her own agenda.
Bush being more amenable to Demos than Cheney could well be one reason Liberals in power haven't formed a steering committee and Bush probably knows it.
The main benefit of course is effecting change through exposure.
I absolutely agree it's remote.
I also agree that if the chips fell where they may a great many would be implicated, but that was a possibility when slick Willy asked what the definition of is, is.
-
10-01-2007, 12:07 AM #89
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
Re: Tough questions about impeachment as an option
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
So, with no accountability, Pres. Bush may suppose he can lead the U.S. down the primrose path to third world serfdom:
- over $9 TRILLION in federal debt;
SPP;
invasion by tens of millions of illegal aliens;
NASCO;
refusal to pardon Ramos and Compean (and Hernandez and Aleman and Corbett);
NAU;
eventual subjection to a future one world government headed by the antichrist.
At some point on that primrose path, treason becomes undeniable.
Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors may be indictable before treason happens.One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
Oklahoma House passes bill making illegal immigration a state...
04-19-2024, 05:14 AM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports