On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 00:35:46 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
George Graves wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:03:32 -0700, Sparrow wrote
(in article om):

Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org


OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.

Wikipedia has a nice list of potential charges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...Bush#Rationale
s_for_impeachment

The ones that potentially involve explicit violations of US law:

1) Warrantless surveillance (violates FISA).
2) Violations of the UN Charter (remember, treaties are US law).
3) Violations of the Geneva Convention (ditto).
4) Commuting Libby's sentence (if done to prevent Libby from turning
state's evidence, it represents obstruction of justice).
5) Politicization of the United States attorney offices, in a scheme
possibly involving voter suppression and a subsequent coverup.
6) Signing statements (the executive is not allowed to rewrite laws).

As of this week, you'll almost certainly be able to add to that
willfully ignoring subpoenas lawfully issued by the US Congress.

If the political will was there to impeach, any of the above could serve
as a constitutionally valid justification. Remember, impeachment doesn't
function according to a "reasonable doubt" standard; it functions
according to whatever standard Congress wants.

[snip]



Then why aren't the Democrats instituting impeachment proceedings? Could it
be that they feel that having Chaney as Pres would be out of the frying pan
and into the fire?