Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
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)

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by gofer
    Was it ever suggested in impeachments of earlier days?
    I can't recall having seen such a case in a federal impeachment, though a possible scenario would be the case of impeachment of a federal judge, given that moral clarity is considered to be an essential quality of a member of the judiciary. You may be thinking of cases in which witnesses have been impeached based upon moral turpitude, but that's something else entirely.

  2. #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.)
    You can be a sarcastic smart ass, seems to me you fit right in LOL.

    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.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereign
    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.)
    You can be a sarcastic smart ass, seems to me you fit right in LOL.

    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.
    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.

  4. #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.
    I believe you're correct. At this point I don't really too much care who gets him impeached out of office first, the Liberals or anti illegal activists or a combination of both just so long as we get some of the credit.

    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.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereign
    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.
    I believe you're correct. At this point I don't really too much care who gets him impeached out of office first, the Liberals or anti illegal activists or a combination of both just so long as we get some of the credit.

    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.
    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.

  6. #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.
    You could well be right. I think Bushes agenda could be paralyzed like Clinton's was and I think his agenda(s) could be exposed and then stopped during a concerted investigation, which would certainly be worthwhile even if impeachment didn't occur. The discovery would hopefully, be significant.

    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.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereign
    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.
    You could well be right. I think Bushes agenda could be paralyzed like Clinton's was and I think his agenda(s) could be exposed and then stopped during a concerted investigation, which would certainly be worthwhile even if impeachment didn't occur. The discovery would hopefully, be significant.

    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.
    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.

  8. #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.
    The agenda is wide spread, we are literally throwing rocks at a giant, a giant that could turn on us. Especially concerning the immigration issue.

    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.

  9. #89
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
    Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. . . 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.
    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.

    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.

    Art. II, Sec. 4:

    [quote:3akdhepg]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.
    [/quote:3akdhepg]
    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!

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Posting Permissions

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