39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 01:55:23 -0700, Wes Newell wrote
(in article %D1ki.25319$BT3.12526@trnddc06):

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:31:38 +0000, sharx35 wrote:

Agreed. On average, the YOUNGER, the stupider and more ignorant and NAIVE a
person is. Minimum age to vote should be 35.

Add to that an IQ over 130. And to run, over 140. Disallow all but
individual contributions. A line item veto fro both the pres and the
house. I would say shoot all crooked officials but then there would be no
one to run the country. Yeah, it's gotten almost that bad.



I can't find a thing in this post to argue with. I'm with you 100% on this.

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:17:10 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:11:00 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(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.
That is not what the US Constitution says. It says:

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.�
"high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever a majority of the House of
Representatives says it means (See: impeachment of Bill Clinton).
I'm not going to get sucked-in to this argument again, but Clinton was
impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury - a felony in
every court in the country.
The only offenses specifically called out in the Constitution are, as
stated above:

Treason -- Clearly defined in the Constitution
Bribery -- Selling the power of the president

Note: Getting caught in a perjury trap is not specified.

All other High Crimes and Misdemeanors are not defined.

Irrelevant. The law of the land defines those. If a president commits a
felony, he CAN be impeached for it, and whether or not he is actually
impeached is, of course, up to Congress. You are right in that its not an
automatic thing.


In what way do you think you are disagreeing with me?

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On 2007-07-08 14:18:17 -0400, Omega said:

The left constantly has to demonize someone or something.

Which your posting also does unbelievably well.

On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves said:

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

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

Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has no
right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.

Is that a threat, or just the empty bluster it looks like?

Are you planning to search me out, locate me and personally throw me
out of the country or do me serious harm? Or are you just the big
blowhard you seem to be?

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has no
right to live under a Democratic Republic.

Who said anything about condoning perjury, other than GWB vis Scooter Libby?

Clinton was caught lying about a blow job. Even a Republican controlled
Senate knew better than to convict in an impeachment trial for that offense.

If, on the other hand, he lied to obstruct justice and impede an
investigation into the matter of endangering national security in the
attempt to discredit a political opponent, then I suspect he would have
been convicted.

That means you, buddy.

Who died and left you in charge of citizenship?

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

ZnU wrote:
In article , "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote:

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

One reason not to do this: Dick Cheney.

He's almost certainly get to go along for the ride. He's in this
stuff deeper than Bush is.


I guess you're right:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/06/poll-54-percent-favor-cheney-impeachment/

Poll: 54 percent favor Cheney impeachment.

According to a recent poll taken by the American Research Group, “54%
of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin
impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including
76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The
same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for
President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of
Republicans, and 50% of independents.”

When you have half or less of independents with you, you are in big trouble.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On 2007-07-08 16:14:04 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" said:

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low,
has no right to live under a Democratic Republic.

Who said anything about condoning perjury, other than GWB vis Scooter Libby?

Clinton was caught lying about a blow job. Even a Republican controlled
Senate knew better than to convict in an impeachment trial for that
offense.

If, on the other hand, he lied to obstruct justice and impede an
investigation into the matter of endangering national security in the
attempt to discredit a political opponent, then I suspect he would have
been convicted.

That means you, buddy.

Who died and left you in charge of citizenship?

Well, you said it all and a lot better than I would have. Thank you.

I was considering an extended reply to that Graves dodo, but gave it up
when I realized that I was not doing a very good job of drafting the
reply. Thank you for standing in for me, and clearly pointing out that
Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment much more than Clinton did - but
the present Congress won't do it.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:53:04 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-08 13:53:32 -0400, George Graves said:

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

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

Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
no
right to live under a Democratic Republic. That means you, buddy.

Is that a threat, or just the empty bluster it looks like?

Not a threat, not bluster. Just a statement of rebuttal against that
obviously equally empty, liberally biased comment of yours. Perjury IS a
legitimate charge. I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time. It undermines our entire court system if ONE perjurer is
allowed to get away with lying under oath, much less the sitting President of
the United States.

Are you planning to search me out, locate me and personally throw me
out of the country or do me serious harm? Or are you just the big
blowhard you seem to be?

Not even worth a comment.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:14:04 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 06:49:25 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-07 22:34:26 -0400, George Graves said:

OK, I'm all for it. What are the charges? Remember, these have to be
legitimate charges, instances where he broke US law.
Anyone who consider's Clinton's impeachment to have been based on
"legitimate charges" is living out in the never-never land of the far
right.


Anyone who condones perjury in a court of law, by anyone, high or low, has
no
right to live under a Democratic Republic.

Who said anything about condoning perjury, other than GWB vis Scooter Libby?

Clinton was caught lying about a blow job. Even a Republican controlled
Senate knew better than to convict in an impeachment trial for that offense.

Please show me where, in any code of jurisprudence in the country where it
gives a witness the right to lie under oath about anything? I'm prepared to
wait until hell freezes over for you find such a loophole, if you wish. But
failing that, you'll find that a witness has two choices and only two
choices: 1) Answer the question truthfully and to the best of one's ability
or 2) stand behind the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and refuse to
answer on the grounds of self incrimination. Clinton COULD have taken the
Fifth and been on firm ground while doing so (given the private nature of the
question). That he preferred to lie, is not only indicative of his lifelong
penchant toward making poor choices, but is blatantly and willfully ILLEGAL.
Had I been the judge, as I've said before, the man would have done time -
starting the minute his presidency was up.


If, on the other hand, he lied to obstruct justice and impede an
investigation into the matter of endangering national security in the
attempt to discredit a political opponent, then I suspect he would have
been convicted.

Unfortunately, the law makes no such distinction about perjury.


That means you, buddy.

Who died and left you in charge of citizenship?

Nobody. I was merely reacting to the previous poster's arrogance, by posting
a bit of my own. Pay it no mind.

On 2007-07-08 18:42:42 -0400, George Graves said:

Perjury IS a
legitimate charge. I'm no Republican, but had I been the Judge, Clinton would
have done time.

Perhaps you didn't notice that Clinton was never on trial in a criminal
court. Even if his impeachment had been successful, he woudn't have
been.

Any more bright ideas?