Interesting use of sarcasm, y'know, in lieu of an actual rebuttal and all, but it doesn't really defend the calls for impeachment as a solution to illegal immigration, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
Printable View
Interesting use of sarcasm, y'know, in lieu of an actual rebuttal and all, but it doesn't really defend the calls for impeachment as a solution to illegal immigration, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
NO you are right about everything ...absolutely right...I bow to your opinions...I am not worthy
Again - sarcasm noted; refusal to address the actual issue noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
http://rightwingandaprayer.net/phpBB.../YakYakYak.gif
Yes again you are right ...and my opinion useless...have you won yet?
This thread was started for a serious reason. You are slipping into a pattern of gratuitous namecalling. My guess is that it's a ploy to get the thread locked. What a cheap ploy. You can't deal with the fact that the impeachment talk is demonstrably counterproductive, so you just disrupt rather than engaging in meaningful debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
I called names ...are you kidding me
Yeah, that's what sarcasm is all about. And again, you are intentionally adding nothing whatsoever to the thread, but rather merely disrupting it. If you have a defense of your position then make it. If not, knock off.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
8O
Well, I'm going to try to keep this thread going for awhile so that any time these impeachment cheerleaders start piping up I can refer them to this thread so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.
Again, I think that this whole issue is something that has been cooked up for specific reasons that have nothing to do with fighting illegal immigration. There are a handful of pot-stirrers driving a large number of otherwise decent Americans who are sucked in by the rhetoric. Once the lynch mob mentality sets in, getting someone's attention long enough to talk some sense to him or her can be a chore.
I am sorry Crocket but I found your words offensive and rude...there are others here that may be beneath you ...but come on..do we really need to tear each other apart..
Ah, I see...Quote:
Originally Posted by redbadger
So in your mind the fact that there exist impeachment cheerleaders and an occasional lynch mob mentality means that someone called YOU a name? Well, buddy, that was a generic characterization of those who eschew reason in favor of reflexive commentary, but if the description fits...
Otherwise, why not attempt to have a reasonable discussion.
Oh, and maybe your feeling you have been slighted will give you the perspective to see what it's like when people such as myself and Neese get accused of all sorts of stuff such as "defending the President" or helping the illegals just because we want to have a rational discussion about the practical possibility of using impeachment as a viable tool in this case.
I'll tell you what, redbadger, my opinion of you has been permanently lowered. I had previously thought of you as a reasonable sute member, but your dirt cheap tactics here will not soon be forgotten.
How pathetic that your inability or refusal to have a reasonable debate gets twisted into unjustified animosity to the extent that you sink to troll tactics.
ok
Agree to disagree would be a good position to take when your just butting heads.
Dixie
Agree...
There was nothing to agree or disagree with. There was just a series of about five posts that had no purpose other than sarcasm and disruption. I would dearly love to have a set of facts to debate, after which we could agree or disagree, but no one seems to want to or be able to present any sort of factual rebuttal. I was accused of everything but conspiring with La Raza for pointing out the absurdity of trying to pursue impeachment without a credible charge, so I created this thread where the issue could be broken down into the underlying issues and laws and be debated on their merits. I didn't create it so that people with nothing to say would stage hit and run attacks with less substance than the namecalling I endured in the other threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
Feel free to delete the entire exchage with badger, but please do not lock or delete the thread until there has been some time allowed for SOMEONE to defend the impeachment argument.
I'm not going to lock it down. I think Bush diserves to be impeached. He's already done us way more harm than what Clinton did to be brought up for impeachement. I don't want Cheney in charge! Impeachable offences. I know High Treason is one. What are the other possibilities? I'm tired and can't think.
Let's just pick one and keep Bush occupied until '08.
Dixie
Now... I agree with this statementQuote:
Let's just pick one and keep Bush occupied until '08.
:lol: Sarcasm works!
Dixie
I agree that the whole damned bunch needs to be out of office. That is not what I am debating. Haven't you been following along? I am making the VERY CLEAR CASE that there is no treason charge that can stick based on the sole definition of the crime of treason that counts in Art. III, Sec. 3. I am pointing out that there is no other charge that CONGRESS will press because every one that has been alluded to in the various rants on this site is one in which Congress is complicit. Understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
If you will just go back to the first post of the thread and go through it point by point, then try to answer the questions at the end, you will clearly see what I am talking about. Will you do that, or are you going to join the churus trying to shout down any sensible debate based on the reality, not the pipe dreams, of the situation.
It works when it can be backed up with something when the need arises. Otherwise it's just hot air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
Crocket, I did respond to your impeachment discussion, I said I don't give a rat's arse about impeachment procedings, but, I do believe something will come to light that will bring him down! Will we be any better off, with whats left to choose between, Cheney or Polosi sorry, I can't spell either,in a nut shell, no. My real fear is that Cheney would have a heart attack, the big one this time, and "that" woman would be in charge, then I most definitely would have to move to immigrate illegally to Tahiti!
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by nittygritty
If something does in fact turn up to bring him down, it will probably mean that the powers that be no longer trust him to do their bidding. That's happened before, in a couple of cases where the bought-off Chief Executive didn't stay bought off and actually started acting according to his conscience, and in a couple of cases where the dirtbag started freelancing for his own benefit and had to be knocked down a peg by his owners. Hint: Both of the latter cases resulted in impeachment, while the former cases resulted in assassination and attempted assassination.
Art. I, Sec. 3:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
Art. II, Sec. 4:Quote:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Here is the actual process, as described by the Legal Information Institute:Quote:
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.
1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.
Okay, so what we have here is first and foremost the requirement that there be a finding of credible evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, treason or bribery, as determined by the House Judiciary Comittee. For information on who currently sits on that committee, go to http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx.
After that a simple majority of the House has to vote on any Article of Impeachment sent forth by the Judiciary Committee.
If one or more Articles of Impeachment are ratified by the House, the Senate holds a trial. Conviction (actual removal from office) requires a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate.
The Questions:
So are we clear on the process? Good. Now, let's answer some questions to determine how realistic it is to believe that impeachment is a realistic possibility based upon the evidence that we now have available or are likely to have in the near future. I limit the evidence in such a manner because of the length of time required to move through the various phases of the process, given that the President now has less than two years remaining to his final term in office.
1. For what crime that is an impeachable offense does sufficient evidence exist for the House Judiciary Committee to make a finding and present Articles of Impeachment to the full House for a vote? Be specific.
2. Which members of the Judiciary committee do you believe will support such a finding?
3. Which members of the House of Representatives do you believe will constitute the majority necessary to ratify articles of impeachment on the charges you have specified? Bear in mind that it is highly unlikely that any Representative who supports any action that you cite as an impeachable offense will vote in favor of impeachment for that offense.
4. Assuming that the Articles of Impeachment are ratified, what credible evidence do you believe will support their prosecution in the Senate? Be specific, bearing in mind that no Senator will support charges for a policy that he has supported.
5. Based on the charges you have specified and the evidence you believe exists, name at least 67 Senators you believe would vote for a conviction.
6. Assuming that there are at least 67 Senators voting for conviction, how much time do you believe will be left of the approximate two years of Bush's final term?
7. Assuming conviction and removal from office, how do you feel about President Cheney? Do you believe that he will reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
8. Assuming that you are really ambitious and plan on having both Bush and Cheney impeached, how do you feel about President Pelosi? Do you believe that she will reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
9. Have you considered the probability that any impeachment with a likelihood of success would simply result in the resignation of Bush and of Cheney following the appointment of unimpeachable successors? Do you believe that those successors would reverse the policies that you find offensive as regards illegal immigration?
10. As regards illegal immigration, which is the topic of this website, how do you believe that an impeachment would positively impact pending legislation? Do you not believe that a Democrat Congress with a President on the ropes would quickly pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) and that a President who knows his days are numbered would not ramrod through as much of his agenda in favor of amnesty and increased immigration as he possibly could?
Conclusion:
I find it difficult to believe that any rational human being who considers the facts and probabilities can go through this exercise and still believe that impeachment is anything but a massive distraction to our cause of fighting amnesty and getting illegal immigration in check. I cannot see a single scenario in which the impeachment process results in positive movement for our cause.
I welcome debate on this subject, but I anticipate that those whose arguments for impeachment and charges of treason have prompted endless commentary on the subject will choose silence over meaningful debate when faced with facts.[/quote:1g6v26kq]
http://rightwingandaprayer.net/phpBB...miles/Bump.gif
Crocket, you are like Alec Trebeck. My answer: who is Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, John F Kennedy and Ronald Regan.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
Hold up, I think Nixon is incorrect, I have to think about this.
How about...who is Andrew Johnson.
Personally, if I were going to impeach the President, I would probably use bribery as my case for impeachment. There is always something marginal going on in politics. Between Jeb's plan to attract Scripps or the Jack Abramoff deal, that is probably the better way to go.This whole Mexico thing is getting interesting. Maybe they can also use the eminenet domain issue or something related to the NAU...mismanagement perhaps(?)I could probably gain the support of Cynthia McKinney, Keith Ellison, Jerrold Nadler, Barbara Boxer and John Conyers. Pelosi would have been helpful until she became Speaker. Now she is sitting pretty and waiting for the bigger plane, so I think that she will sit tight. As we already know, I don't support the impeachment effort because there won't be any time left in the current Presidency and the successors would not be any more helpful, and if it got to Pelosi, I believe things could be much worse. For sure, amnesty would get passed. For those that do want to impeach, a recall election would have come in handy if it were allowed at a federal level, but it isn't. Sure, I am talking out of my butt, but this is the best that I could come up with. Any other takers?
No, you were correct the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neese
Bribery is one of the hardest charges to prove, because there must be an unambiguous quid pro quo or else and actual piece of direct evidence such as a recorded conversation, letter or electronic memo that specifies the quid pro quo. That a person accused of bribery eventually benefitted from a suggested quid pro quo after donations were made is generally insufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neese
I'm still not sure about this. Nixon was to be impeached but resigned and Ford pardoned him. Andrew Johnson, our 17th President was to be impeached twice(?), but I think he may have been aquitted, because I think he ran for Senate and won again. I don't know...Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
How about high crimes? There are no definitions for it, and it is up to the Senate to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
As far as "quid pro quo"...I know what "squid" is and I know what the "high pro glow" is from the dogfood commercials. Mrs Johnson said I'd never 'mount to much if I didn't finish the fourth grade... and I'll be darned if she wasn't right. I laugh...ha!!
dont impeach !!!!
the aclu will say :
all americans rights are in harms way
Besides that does anyone realy believe or think the current VP would be beter for the last few mounths this admin is in office.
Why impeach make him do his job so we all get our $$$$ worth !!!!
Greg, I have got great news for you. I belong to a local group called Knitters Against Illegal Immigration. We have 30 or so members, depending on who is at the doctor and what have you. Well according to our treasurer, we have enough money to put up at least one billboard in several major cities. We nominated great Americans, just like yourself, to be the poster child for our campaign, and I chose you!!!!!! We had something like 347 nominees and we have it narrowed down to 200 and you are still in the running! What we'll have is a gigantic picture of you (or whomever we choose) with one hand on your hip so it looks like you mean business, and then your foot looking like it is stomping out a cigarette, but it will actually be a flag from a country that does not respect our laws. And then in the other hand, you'll have your palm facing upward holding a ball of yarn because we are spending a lot of money on these ads, and we'll want to promote knitting too. Then I thought we could use your patriotic saw blade in the background as a symbolic gesture to cut down on illegal immigration. And then, I thought me and all of my friends could stand behind you with our knitting needles, acting tough. I am not sure how many people that we will be able to fit in because a lot of us have Rascal scooters and walkers and things. But the best part is that you will become famous like Taylor Hicks....a household name. Our slogan will be Knitters and Great Americans stomping out illegal immigration. Check with your city on permits and stuff in case you win. We are picking three, so keep your fingers crossed. Just imagine, every person in your town will know that you are a great American!!! I can't wait.
:lol:
what color is the yarn ?
CG,
I agree, it would be very difficult to impeach the president. I thought the whole Clinton attempt was a worthless waste of time and money.
The following is exactly why I am against it. 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.) Desiring for someone to get the worst possible punishment is like you said, an emotional reacton.
Has Bush been a bad president? Hell yes. Can we impeach him for it? Very doubtful. Can we ever find resolve in that? Only in the history books.
My personal preference is to spend our tax dollars to build a fence and hire some more immigration officers, instead of waste money on a witch hunt.
However, I am intrigued by guidelines of impeachable offences and the speculation of Bush nearing the threshold of an offense.
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/A1dstarr2.html
Starr spent $7 million investigating Clinton during impeachment period
KAREN GULLO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Copyright © 1999 Associated Press.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
WASHINGTON -- Independent counsel Kenneth Starr spent $7.2 million investigating President Clinton during the six-month period that included the Senate impeachment trial.
That brings expenses so far for Starr's five-year investigation of the president, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates to $47 million. More than a quarter of that was spent during the Monica Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment.
With the investigation continuing, Starr is on the brink of becoming the most expensive independent counsel ever.
Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh spent $48.5 million on a six-year investigation of whether the Reagan administration attempted arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and assisted Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's leftist government.
Starr's expenses for the six-month period ending March 31 included $5.7 million for salaries, travel and rent and $1.5 million for costs of U.S. Marshals Service, FBI and Justice Department employees detailed to Starr's office, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in a report released Thursday.
Clinton's impeachment trial in the Senate began the first week of January and ended in acquittal on Feb. 12.
In 1994, Starr began investigating 1980s Arkansas land deals involving the Clintons. In January 1998, Starr's investigation expanded to include Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.
Starr spent more than $13 million during the year that covered most of the Lewinsky investigation and the impeachment, the office's figures show.
Though the law creating the independent counsel post expired June 30, investigations already under way are allowed to continue.
Starr plans to leave the job soon, and several of his deputies have interviewed with a three-judge panel to take his place, courthouse employees have said.
The General Accounting Office report, updated every six months, showed that seven other special investigations -- five active and two closed -- spent a combined $7.3 million during the period:
Carol Elder Bruce, appointed to investigate allegations that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied to Congress, spent $2.4 million. Babbitt has not been charged.
Donald C. Smaltz, independent counsel investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, spent $1.8 million. Espy was acquitted.
Independent Counsel David M. Barrett's inquiry of allegations that Henry Cisneros, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about payments to a former mistress cost $1.6 million. Cisneros pleaded guilty Sept. 7 to a misdemeanor.
Ralph I. Lancaster Jr.'s investigation of allegations that Labor Secretary Alexis Herman engaged in influence peddling and solicited illegal campaign contributions spent $1.1 million. The investigation continues.
An investigation by prosecutors Arlin M. Adams and Larry D. Thompson of Reagan administration-era corruption at the Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $382,043.
Daniel S. Pearson, whose investigation of financial dealings of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown ended when Brown died in an April 1996 plane crash, spent $42,381.
Curtis E. von Kann, who investigated and cleared a former Clinton White House official, Eli J. Segal, of conflict-of-interest allegations, spent $22,632.
This article was published on Saturday, October 2, 1999
Quid pro quo means "something for something." It is the legal term used to define a verifiable arrangement in which an official or company officer accepts something (payment, property, etc.) in exchange for a specific action or favor. The term is generally only applicable when the person accepting payment does so in breach of fiduciary responsibility or oath. In other words, it applies to cases of bribery, defining specifically what was given in exchange for what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neese
It appears that you understand my argument precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
Yes sir I sure do.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
I also agree that bribery is very hard to prove because it is easily masked as a business transaction or a gift. Even if one party comes forward, it is usually the one that got the lesser end of the deal so it appears to be nothing but a disgruntled participant of a bad deal. Also, it’s little more than a he said she said scenario and the testimony cancels itself out.
Dixie
CG, can you explain "moral turpitute", which is a term I've heard used in talk show discussions about impeachment?
Well, moral turpitude is a concept that arises under the common law, though it may also be employed in contractual law as a condition of performance. While most crimes under the common law are required to have a specific victim, an injured party, moral turpitude violations involve what are called "crimes against nature." Now the term "nature" as used here does not emply the modern definition, but rather is rooted in the idea of the God of Nature or Creator so often referenced in this nation's founding documents. Nature, in this context, is the dominion of the Creator, and crimes against nature are crimes against the moral codes established by the Creator. In the days in which the nation was founded, those codes were believed to have been recorded in the Holy Bible. They were also described by several of the founders as the Judeo-Christian ethic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gofer
Laws that fell under the heading of moral turpitude laws included laws prohibiting sodomy and polygamy, and the so-called "blue laws" that prohibited commerce on the Sabbath. In terms of contractual uses of the concept of moral turpitude, that could include any specified immoral behavior that could be injurious to the contracting parties or the image of the contracting parties. A prime example would be the moral turpitude clauses employed by most beauty pageants by which a winner or contestant forfeits her title and prizes if she engages in certain immoral or illicit behavior, as when Vanessa Williams posed for Playboy.
Because most of this nation is no longer being administered under the common law or substantive due process, but rather under an international mercantile jurisdiction, moral turpitude codes have little meaning in criminal law. Most of the old moral turpitude laws, such as the blue laws, laws prohibiting sodomy, etc., have been or are being stricken from local and state code (which is administrative in nature).
As relates to the Presidency, there are no specific moral turpitude clauses for the office. There is an oath of office, but again there is little to do with moral turpitude contained therein. Because the federal government is and has for some time been administered under a commercial and administrative jurisdiction, there is no longer any general appliction of the concept of moral turpitude. If you are aware of any statutory provisions that contain specific applicable moral turpitude clauses, I would be interested in hearing about them. Barring that, I would say that using moral turpitude as a means of impeachment is pretty archaic.
Was it ever suggested in impeachments of earlier days?