# Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390 "2008-06-10T01:23:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/181 "2008-06-18T21:48:05Z")
Re;evant news: [A federal judge just ruled the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and does not have to comply with a FOIA request to disclose documents relating to the disappearance of WH e-mails.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061600872.html) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/182 "2008-06-18T21:59:11Z")
Whoa, **BG**! First, we impeach him about Iraq, _then_ we can impeach him for trying to make the Justice Dept an arm of the RNC! Priorities, man, priorities! We’ve only got to January, you know! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2008, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/183 "2008-06-18T22:38:43Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] **Evil Captor** and **BrainGlutton** , I’m not sure why you are going nuts on this topic. If you wish to assert that an existing witch hunt against Clinton was ultimately so unsuccessful that the Republicans were reduced to tracking him down over statements unrelated to governance that pretty much all emanated from a blowjob, I could sort of see your point, although the witch hunt had begun years earlier. If you are asserting that the only reason the Republicans were willing to go after Clinton with such fervor or that the witch hunt was the result of his getting an extramarital blowjob, then you are being delusional. [/quote] I am asserting that the Pubbies thought they could politically succed with an impeachment because they thought the rabble would be so worked up over the blowjob that they wouldn’t see that what was going on was a political coup attempt conducted via impeachment. That’s why they took such pains to make the blowjob a matter of public discourse. They wanted the rabble roused about it. Because of Republican conduct, the central fact of the impeachment was the blowjob, the business about lying under oath was just the legal hook on which they hung the blowjob, so to speak. When Republicans and conservatives maintain that the impeachment was just a matter of lying under oath, they are trying to clean up the blot on the image of the Pubbies that was created by the disgusting, unwholesome, sleazy conduct of the Republican leadership back then. I don’t think they should be allowed to do so. I’m sure they dearly wish they had not behaved so badly in the blowjob impeachment, but they did, and I intend to see that the memory lingers like a stain on a dress left unwashed in the closet. > [@](#): > > Either way, it does not require this much passion to make your point. Take some Accupril and calm down. I’m quite calm. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/184 "2008-06-19T00:16:08Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] My view is that he \*should \* be impeached, yes. Do you disagree? [/quote] Yes, I do. > [@](#): > > Will he be? The time frame makes that unlikely, granted. Of course, all the wise analysts agreed that it was impossible to impeach Nixon, you may recall. > > But I want the truth, I want it laid out, sworn to under oath. And if we can have that without impeachment, peachy. If that is the only method that will compel the truth, then so be it. > > But I’m damned if I’ll let that lying little shit toddle off to Crawford like an elder statesmen with the thanks of a grateful nation. Too many have suffered too much. You didn’t answer my question. Do you contend that the action of referring Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee was intended to move the impeachment forward? If you do, then at what date will you concede you were mistaken? Two simple questions. I’m not asking what you want, what would be best, what would make the choirs of angels in heaven sing. I’m asking: Do you contend that the action of referring Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to committee was intended to move the impeachment forward? And if you do, then at what date will you concede you were mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/185 "2008-06-19T00:35:01Z")
You’re bluffing, you can’t hold a grudge that long. Now, in the interim, I’ve read some news reports that suggest that Kucinich regards the Judiciary Committe as a\* hindrance \* to his effort… > [@](#): > > …"The minute the leadership said ‘this is dead on arrival’ I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I’m coming back with it,” … Now, when _he_ says the leadership is against it, that’s a whole different level of authority. I figure it must be so. But I gotta ask, unless it will lead us into a contest of exquisite parsing of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, if Gee Dub doesn’t deserve to be impeached, what would it take? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/186 "2008-06-19T00:38:14Z")
This quote: [“There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes,” Taguba says. “The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.”](http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/?iref=mpstoryview) sums it all up for me quite nicely. You have a war criminal for President. Swell. ---
**Author:** ![drewbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drewbert/32/15890_2.png) [@drewbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewbert)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/187 "2008-06-19T00:38:26Z")
[He’s Baaaaack](http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/06/kucinich_vows_more_impeachment.html), promising 25 more articles if the Judiciary Committee sits this out. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/188 "2008-06-19T00:42:06Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] On what basis do you conclude that I have not “come clean”, save for my stubborn refusal to agree with you? [/QUOTE] Only you and the Shadow know what is in your heart, 'luci… [QUOTE=elucidator] You freely admit you have no evidence beyond your own opinion, and that no evidence is possible. It may even be true, I can certainly see tactical advantages for allowing Dennis the K to fulfill his promise, and get busy with chucking the buggers out. And I wholeheartedly agree that is the crucial issue of our time. [/QUOTE] Of course not…since this grand ‘evidence’ hasn’t been made public and weighed in a court or other structured setting (like Congressional hearing, say), it was a silly request on your part. However, I think we can deduce some things from the facts we DO know. [QUOTE=elucidator] Best guess? The cynical bastards want it both ways, they want to keep the threat of an investigation towards impeachment open as they turn over rocks to inventory the vermin therein under. If they are obstructed, they can always dust it off. If we can get the truth without it, that’s probably best, but the truth! goddamit! the truth! [/QUOTE] :dubious: Why shelve it then? Why aren’t the Republican’s exactly quaking in their boots over this? Why did the Republican’s in fact want to bring this out in the open while the Dems chose to shunt this to committee so it could die a quiet death…just like Chaney’s supposed impeachment already has? Since I’m not at a computer and this post is probably a complete mess I’ll leave it to Bricker and his question to you…do you think this impeachment by Kucinich will actually have the effect you indicate? What time frame are you willing to look at this and say that it has in fact been shelved indefinitely and that this issue is dead…merely a grandstanding stunt? 1 year? 5 years? Through the entire Obama presidency? Some time this century? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/189 "2008-06-19T00:46:17Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Now, when _he_ says the leadership is against it, that’s a whole different level of authority. I figure it must be so. [/quote] So you now concede – without ever making it sound like a concession – that you were mistaken; that the move to the Judiciary Committee IS in fact intended to shelve the resolution. Thanks. > [@](#): > > But I gotta ask, unless it will lead us into a contest of exquisite parsing of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, if Gee Dub doesn’t deserve to be impeached, what would it take? A criminal act under US law. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/190 "2008-06-19T01:01:49Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] I’m sorry…I’m viewing the thread on my phone atm (and on one of the customers servers earlier). Could you be specific as to which post you are refering to so I can look it up and see if any of the points you are making haven’t been addressed? [/QUOTE] 18 and 40 in particular. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/191 "2008-06-19T01:03:56Z")
[QUOTE=drewbert] He’s Baaaaack, promising 25 more articles if the Judiciary Committee sits this out. [/QUOTE] Too funny. I do have to concede that Kucinich probably isn’t grandstanding…he really IS a moonbat of the first order. You guys should have muzzled him when you had the chance… > [@](#): > > Kucinich tells us he’s giving the House Judiciary Committee 30 days to act on his resolution proposing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush or else he’ll raise even more hell on the House floor. Thirty-five articles was just the tip of the iceberg. If Judiciary does nothing, he’ll go back to the House floor next month armed with nearly twice as many articles. And if those 35 don’t take, well… > [@](#): > > “The minute the leadership said ‘this is dead on arrival’ I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I’m coming back with it,” Kucinich vowed in an interview with the Sleuth this week. “It’s not gonna die. Because I’ll come back with more articles. Not 35, but perhaps 60 articles.” And if THOSE 60 die then he will double it again to 120…and then to 240! Like a penny, if you double it every day eventually you’ll get an impeachment! > [@](#): > > But before he stages Night of the Living Impeachment Part II in the House chamber, the former presidential candidate says he’ll meet with House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) this week to try to convince him to consider just one little article of impeachment against Bush for waging a war “based on lies.” Take one, any one, Chairman Conyers, but please - just take one! He will settle for just one though…just one. Just…someone to take him seriously on his own ‘side’! Blessed are they who believe without seeing… > [@](#): > > Democratic leaders view the notion of impeaching George W. Bush as an act of political suicide for their party. But Kucinich says “there are some things that yield to reason, and there are other things that yield to politics…I cannot understand what the political reason would be to not [impeach Bush].” I have to agree with Kucinich here…why would it be ‘political suicide’ if he in fact has all of this indisputable smoking gun proof? It doesn’t seem rational to me…especially in an election year when the Dems actually have their best chance in years to not only take the presidency but to control the house and senate to. > [@](#): > > Asked why he thinks his leadership is so appalled by impeachment, he says, “There is no rational explanation…There’s no plausible political explanation. There just is no explanation.” Agreed…unless of course the Democratic leadership is less sure of this massive evidence than Kucinich is of course. I can’t think of any other rational reason…well, unless the Dems (save Kucinich) are in on it to of course and are afraid if they impeach Bush it will splash on them to. From the article I’ll leave it where they do… > [@](#): > > Sure, that’s likely. As soon as the Nationals win the penant. -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/192 "2008-06-19T01:05:35Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] So you now concede – without ever making it sound like a concession – that you were mistaken; that the move to the Judiciary Committee IS in fact intended to shelve the resolution… [/quote] Upon recent evidence. As noted above. I can speak for myself well enough, if I need your assistance, I will not hesitate to ask. > [@](#): > > …Thanks… You’re welcome, of course, I only hope it won’t spoil your gloat if I tell you you had nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > …A criminal act under US law. A daunting standard. I only hope we can find persons of sufficient character to meet your rigorous demands. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/193 "2008-06-19T01:11:09Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A criminal act under US law. [/QUOTE] There’s this thing called the ‘constitution.’ You may have heard of it. Maybe I don’t have a lawyerly mind, but ISTM that if the Constitution is blatantly violated, then finding a statute that codifies the Constitution in the right way, and translates said violation into a felony, is merely icing on the cake. Ditto for violation of the Geneva Conventions, which the Constitution says are part of the law of the land. Maybe none of the other signatories will ever hold Bush responsible, but there’s no reason we can’t say that crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity and deserve impeachment, even if there’s nothing in the U.S. code that criminalizes said crimes. Your law strains a gnat and swallows a camel. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/194 "2008-06-19T01:15:44Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] There’s this thing called the ‘constitution.’ You may have heard of it. Maybe I don’t have a lawyerly mind, but ISTM that if the Constitution is blatantly violated, then finding a statute that codifies the Constitution in the right way, and translates said violation into a felony, is merely icing on the cake. [/quote] It isn’t. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” means acts that could be prosecuted as criminal. (It doesn’t have to mean this, of course – but the other “standard” is “whatever Congress says,” and Congress ain’t sayin’ anything, either.) So that’s it. I’m asked what it would take – a criminal act. That’s what I’d need for my agreement that impeachment is warranted. Seems like Congress agrees. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/195 "2008-06-19T01:22:58Z")
Well, here we go to Parse City. Is “warranted” the same as “deserve”? Because “deserve” is what I asked. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/196 "2008-06-19T01:24:00Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] 18 and 40 in particular. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > I’m all for standing up for the truth. Maybe Kucinich has added a bunch of absurd impeachment charges in with the obvious ones, and people laugh at him. But though this President and Vice-President have deserved a tandem impeachment proceeding for years, the gatekeepers of our dialogue have ridiculed the whole idea from day one. I’m all for the truth to. I don’t think we are seeing ‘truth’ here though…rather I think we are seeing a lone nutball who is playing to the meme of the left. But, you know, if the Dems and/or Kucinich bring this into a structured setting and DO find Bush et al guilty of actual crimes I’m all for it. > [@](#): > > They’ve lied us into an unnecessary and disastrous war, they’ve admitted to authorizing what we used to agree was torture, they’ve engaged in wide-scale wiretapping without FISA (or any other kind of) warrants, they’ve turned the prosecuting authority of the Federal government into a banana-republic-style partisan operation, they’ve thumbed their noses at Congressional subpoenas pretty much across the board, and have in general used the Constitution for toilet paper. Well, that’s all very poetic and hyperbolic…and it plays well to the same choir as Kucinich is playing to. What exactly did you want me to respond to here…that you can be as hyperbolic as he? The thing is…are any of the less hyperbolic statements here actually illegal? IANAL but if they ARE illegal, and since there should be sufficient proof, then why aren’t the Dems moving on this stuff? > [@](#): > > The proper arena to consider these matters, in the absence of any other sufficient investigative authority, is and has always been an impeachment proceeding. But the Broders and Hiatts of the world have pooh-poohed that idea, and the Dem Congressional leadership has bought in. Well, that’s convenient, ehe? There is of course all this massive proof…but the Dems Congressional leadership (and most of the members) have ‘bought in’ to not doing a thing about it. Assuming this is true and that Bush is guilty as sin but that the Dems in Congress won’t lift a finger, then what is the point? It’s over…the system is fucked beyond repair if a corrupt president can’t even be touched by the opposition party since they have ‘bought in’ to. Of course there IS another explanation that doesn’t quite paint the Dems in such a bad light…though of course it puts Kucinich in a worse one. YMMV of course, but I think I know where my own Occam’s Razor cuts the issue. > [@](#): > > So even if it’s Kucinich, Kucinich is a hell of a lot better than nobody. Who knows what history will say about this Congress, but I believe its failure to act as its Article I powers were disregarded by the Executive Branch won’t be looked on favorably. Historians are more likely, IMHO, to wonder why Kucinich didn’t have more mainstream company, than to laugh at Kucinich himself. Possibly. Or they may wonder how we because so blindly partisan that anyone ever took Kucinich seriously at all. Time will tell I expect. > [@](#): > > Originally the leadership’s idea that they would be too busy passing legislation and conducting investigations, and impeachment would just get in the way, made some sort of sense. But legislation founders on the Great Wall of Cloture, and with the Administration’s unwillingness to honor Congressional subpoenas (and Congress’ unwillingness to use inherent contempt), Congress has no advantage over any private entity with respect to investigations. So there’s nothing standing in the way of impeachment in that regard. If nothing is standing in the way of impeachment then I suppose we’ll see it happen, ehe? Perhaps in the end Kucinich is right and Bush is guilty…which would confirm to me several things…the biggest one being that both Dems and Pubs are as alike as I think they are, both cast really in the same slimy mold. But, hope springs eternal, and perhaps the Dem leadership (and most of the Dem Congresscritters) know something that those on the screeching left don’t…so I won’t hold my breath waiting for the trials… (BTW, sorry if the discussion has moved on…and also sorry I didn’t get to your other post. It’s really painful to post from my phone, even with a keyboard attached) -XT ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/197 "2008-06-19T01:47:53Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A criminal act under US law. [/QUOTE] Is it not redundant to call war crimes, “crimes”? And do they not fall under US law? Because commit them he did. Again, for the hard of hearing: [**General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes**](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/41514.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*…The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices. > > “After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.” > > Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote.\*\* Or is he a lefty moonbat as well? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/198 "2008-06-19T02:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, here we go to Parse City. Is “warranted” the same as “deserve”? Because “deserve” is what I asked. [/QUOTE] It’s not the same. And in my view, no, he doesn’t deserve it, either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/199 "2008-06-19T02:22:35Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Is it not redundant to call war crimes, “crimes”? And do they not fall under US law? Because commit them he did. Again, for the hard of hearing: [**General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes**](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/41514.html) [/quote] I missed where that story says Bush (as opposed to “the administration”) did these heinous deeds. Nixon personally approved the cover-up. Clinton personally lied under oath. Johnson personally fired Staunton. Bush personally did… what? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/200 "2008-06-19T02:30:13Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] …Bush personally did… what? [/QUOTE] I’d very much like to know that. How about you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=11)