35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday June 10, @07:52PM
from the high-crimes-and-misdemeanors dept.
vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)."

The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.


- From Slashdot.
 
election year grand standing

This is Kucinich we are talking about here. If anyone in Congress qualifies as a "true believer", it is him. Plus, he has been beating this drum for a while, including introducing impeachment articles for Cheney a year ago.
 
This is Kucinich we are talking about here. If anyone in Congress qualifies as a "true believer", it is him. Plus, he has been beating this drum for a while, including introducing impeachment articles for Cheney a year ago.



that also went nowhere
 
I honestly don't think this is any bigger than a story entitled "teen smokes joint before concert". It won't go anywhere, and few really care. The end is in sight and people are looking at the road ahead, not out the windows for places to stop.
 
Congress prettymuch ignored the Cheney one, and are pretty much ignoring this one too. Anyway, GW and DC wrote it into law that they were pardoned in advance so it's pointless.
 
More like: "too little, too late."

That's essentially my take on it. As I understand it, President Clinton was impeached (was he not?) -- in my opinion for lying about something he should never have been asked in the first place. Then nothing really happened.

So too with Nixon. As public disgrace and threats of impeachment loomed over his second term -- in that instance, for actual crimes, which he ordered or should have been aware of -- he resigned. Ford pardoned him, supposedly to save Americans the anguish of watching someone answer for their crimes. Nixon went on to write several self-serving books.

As for President Bush, somebody was talking the "Bush lied" campaign in another thread. The "Bush lied" line, while I agree with it, neglects a number of cold truths. Bush lied... and he told the lie that so many people desperately wanted to hear. Bush lied... and Congress lay down and shirked their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.

It seems to me that neither impeachment nor the threat of impeachment has any relevance.
 
Well, as expected, it's dead.

The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely.

Last year, Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. But the attempt failed in November, when Republicans tried to force a debate on it. Democrats voted to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where the committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, has taken no action on it.

An earlier resolution to impeach Cheney has languished in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since May 2007.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach.vote/index.html
 
Anyway, GW and DC wrote it into law that they were pardoned in advance so it's pointless.
Your source for this? I don't think they write laws. That's congresses job.

Are you refering to possible crimes while in office being tried after they leave?
 
I forget the detail, somewhere in here is a long discussion that touched on it, 2004/2005 I think. Basically said something to the extent that they weren't doing anything wrong, but if they were, they were excused. Was buried in some multi-thousand page bill that went through.
 
Actually, impeachment requires Senate and then Congress to say 'go for it, impreach the loser' but, the Supreme Court has to actually impeach him. Clinton only got through Senate, the court didn't hear it.
 
Back
Top