Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663

    Tough questions about impeachment as an option

    The Issue

    Okay, I have read thread after thread and post after post of riled up site members touting "impeachment" as a realistic and desirable option for removing this President from office and somehow solving the immigration problem. Along with impeachment is a lot of loose talk about prosecution for "treason." I have attempted to address these comments as they have come up, pointing out that these are not viable options. The responses to my posts have ranged from claims that I am somehow "defending" either Bush or the illegal aliens to slient dismissal. So the rants continue to clog the boards and precious energy is sapped that would be better directed at making sure that Congress never gets a pro-illegal bill to the President's desk.

    Because you guys seem so damned adamant about pressing your impeachment disniformation, I would like to use this thread to engage in a dialogue in which I set forth some questions whose answers will demonstrate the futility of the impeachment/treason approach. I will begin by providing some factual information on the process, which any of you may feel free to rebut if you have contrary factual information. I will then proceed to the critical questions. I challenge each and every one of you calling for charges of treason and/or impeachment to engage in this debate so that we may resolve this matter and move on.

    The Facts

    First, let's look at treason. The sole legal definition of treason in this country arises under Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. It reads:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
    Okay, did you get that? Now I don't like most of these countries from which the illegal immigrants are flowing any more than most of you do, but they are not declared enemies. Period. Illegal immigrants are laewbreakers, but they as a group are not enemies either. At this point, even the racist groups whose rhetoric calls for the conquest of the American Southwest are not, legally speaking, enemies, because our government is actively FUNDING THEM with our tax dollars. So the actions that may be construed as treason require an enemy to whom the accused has "adhered" or given aid and comfort, and there is no declared enemy in this case.

    Here is the list of successful prosecutions for treason in the entire history of this country:

    John Brown, convicted of treason against the state of Virginia
    Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose." Subsequently pardoned by President Ford.
    Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion
    Mildred Gillars, "Axis Sally"
    Hans Max Haupt, convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison for aiding his son who was a spy for Germany during the Second World War
    Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason, but eventually pardoned by President Kennedy and deported to Japan
    Martin James Monti, USAAF pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944.

    In every case the accused either abetted a declared enemy during wartime or else engaged in an armed rebellion against the United States.

    So treason is out UNLESS AND UNTIL there is some evidence that President Bush has aided and abetted an actual declared enemy of the US.

    Now let's move on the impeachment. Authority and rules for impeachment arise under the Constitution as follows:

    Art. I, Sec. 2:

    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
    Art. I, Sec. 3:

    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.
    Art. II, Sec. 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.
    Here is the actual process, as described by the Legal Information Institute:

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Neese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sanctuary City
    Posts
    2,231
    Impeach!!!!

  3. #3
    Senior Member nittygritty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,251
    Are you saying here Crocket the Congressmen, I am not sure if it was the CA Congressman or Tancredo who said impeachment would be talked about if these border agents were murdered in prison, are you saying they are being irrational also?Personally, I really don't give a rat's you know what about impeachment, I think the big man is gong to be brought down because of these 2 border guards and the ATT Gen to! It is not going to be Iraq that gets Bush it is going to be our border and these 2 guards!
    Build the dam fence post haste!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Neese
    Impeach!!!!
    That's probably about the most detailed response I'm going to get, but what the Hell?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by nittygritty
    Are you saying here Crocket the Congressmen, I am not sure if it was the CA Congressman or Tancredo who said impeachment would be talked about if these border agents were murdered in prison, are you saying they are being irrational also?Personally, I really don't give a rat's you know what about impeachment, I think the big man is gong to be brought down because of these 2 border guards and the ATT Gen to! It is not going to be Iraq that gets Bush it is going to be our border and these 2 guards!
    I am saying that those Congressmen are using the topic as a political ploy unless and until they specify charges and evidence. You have to separate politicking from reality.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TEXAS - The Lone Star State
    Posts
    16,941
    Quote Originally Posted by nittygritty
    Are you saying here Crocket the Congressmen, I am not sure if it was the CA Congressman or Tancredo who said impeachment would be talked about if these border agents were murdered in prison, are you saying they are being irrational also?Personally, I really don't give a rat's you know what about impeachment, I think the big man is gong to be brought down because of these 2 border guards and the ATT Gen to! It is not going to be Iraq that gets Bush it is going to be our border and these 2 guards!

    it was CALIFORNIA comgressman DANA ROHRABACHER
    Tancredo as we know, is from colorado

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesw62
    Quote Originally Posted by nittygritty
    Are you saying here Crocket the Congressmen, I am not sure if it was the CA Congressman or Tancredo who said impeachment would be talked about if these border agents were murdered in prison, are you saying they are being irrational also?Personally, I really don't give a rat's you know what about impeachment, I think the big man is gong to be brought down because of these 2 border guards and the ATT Gen to! It is not going to be Iraq that gets Bush it is going to be our border and these 2 guards!

    it was CALIFORNIA comgressman DANA ROHRABACHER
    Tancredo as we know, is from colorado
    So, jamesw62, you decided not to take on the questions above?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Neese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sanctuary City
    Posts
    2,231
    Personally, I think that everyone is jumping on the impeachment bandwagon. It is no different than "it's all about the oil" or "there are no WMD". It is a catchphrase that catches peoples attention and people use it freely, even when it does not make sense. As you know, I am a big fan of Mr Tancredo but I cringed when he used the term. It makes me lose confidence in his decision making. Justice is one thing, and impeachment is another.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Neese
    Personally, I think that everyone is jumping on the impeachment bandwagon. It is no different than "it's all about the oil" or "there are no WMD". It is a catchphrase that catches peoples attention and people use it freely, even when it does not make sense. As you know, I am a big fan of Mr Tancredo but I cringed when he used the term. It makes me lose confidence in his decision making. Justice is one thing, and impeachment is another.
    Again, I suspect PsyOps. I understand how the propaganda machine works. When you see a movement that's dangerous to the established order (the cleptocracy), you paralyse it with meaningless rhetoric or divert it down a blind path.

  10. #10
    Senior Member nittygritty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Neese
    Personally, I think that everyone is jumping on the impeachment bandwagon. It is no different than "it's all about the oil" or "there are no WMD". It is a catchphrase that catches peoples attention and people use it freely, even when it does not make sense. As you know, I am a big fan of Mr Tancredo but I cringed when he used the term. It makes me lose confidence in his decision making. Justice is one thing, and impeachment is another.
    Neese, here I am not sure of myself, but I will say it anyway, I feel before this investigation into the Border guards is over it may well be proved, possibly, that Bush and Gonzales both had a part in railroading these guards into a trial before the investigation against them was even complete, I think it will have to do with framing these guards to send a message to the other guards hands off so to speak,I think it might just be enough to start impeachment procedures, Crocket knows much more about this then I and probably a lot of others on here, I give him that, am just thinking there might be something to run with before this is all over, what do you think Crocket? What would have to come about regarding these 2 guards and their trial that might bring Bush or at the least the aTT Gen down?
    Build the dam fence post haste!

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •