# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/61 "2008-06-11T13:06:32Z")
And I understand in return that you fully support gratuitous impeachment, and thought it was a good idea. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/62 "2008-06-11T13:17:06Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] We could have done that in 2004 by not re-electing him. Guess what happened instead? [/QUOTE] What happened was that we didn’t re-elect him. But it didn’t seem to make any difference. Maybe we should’ve tried garlic or silver? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/63 "2008-06-11T13:21:33Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] And I understand in return that you fully support gratuitous impeachment, and thought it was a good idea. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Actually, yes. I was eager to see Clinton impeached, if not removed from office, for exactly the reason I stated above. Am I as correct in characterizing your position on impeachment in the 1990s as you were in characterizing mine? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/64 "2008-06-11T13:27:44Z")
[QUOTE=ZebraShaSha] Just wait until Obama is elected. I guarantee his first mistake will be seen as the coming of the apocalypse. [/QUOTE] Nah, that’ll be his election. I was just sitting in a room yesterday with some nice, older Mississippi women. They talked about how Obama being elected would mean that “America would stop being America” and how they “love my country, so I can’t see moving, but what am I going to do?”. Already covered. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/65 "2008-06-11T13:27:51Z")
[QUOTE=Myself] There maybe good reasons for the Democrats not to pursue this matter, but I can’t think of a one. Any Republican who helps block impeachment should be branded a traitor, along with the media that ignores what’s obvious and crucial to the Nation. [/QUOTE] Before branding the Republicans as traitors, isn’t it fair to say that the Democratic leadership are traitors for not getting behind Kucinich? No Republican has “blocked” impeachment yet; they are the minority party in the House and it only takes a majority to pass articles of impeachment. There is no cloture rule in the House, for that matter. Obviously the brave Kucinich is not a traitor, but how about Nancy Pelosi? But for her stifling efforts, this impeachment bandwagon would be rolling merrily along. Where’s your ire for her? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/66 "2008-06-11T13:34:29Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] Can the President be prosecuted for actions taken while president? [/quote] Yes, but whether he can be prosecuted **while he’s president** is an unsettled question. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/67 "2008-06-11T13:39:27Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What happened was that we didn’t re-elect him. [/QUOTE] Then it won’t be possible to impeach him. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/68 "2008-06-11T13:40:18Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Maybe Kucinich has added a bunch of absurd impeachment charges in with the obvious ones . . . [/QUOTE] [Actually, no.](http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581) > [@](#): > > Article I > Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. > > Article II > Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression. > > Article III > Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War. > > Article IV > Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States. > > Article V > Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression. > > Article VI > Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114. > > Article VII > Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War. > > Article VIII > Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter. > > Article IX > Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor. > > Article X > Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes. > > Article XI > Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq. > > Article XII > Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources. > > Article XIIII > Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries. > > Article XIV > Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. > > Article XV > Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq. > > Article XVI > Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors. > > Article XVII > Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives. > > Article XVIII > Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy. > > Article XIX > Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture. > > Article XX > Imprisoning Children. > > Article XXI > Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government. > > Article XXII > Creating Secret Laws. > > Article XXIII > Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. > > Article XXIV > Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. > > Article XXV > Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens. > > Article XXVI > Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements. > > Article XXVII > Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply. > > Article XXVIII > Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice. > > Article XXIX > Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. > > Article XXX > Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare. > > Article XXXI > Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency. > > Article XXXII > Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change. > > Article XXXIII > Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911. > > Article XXXIV > Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001. > > Article XXXV > Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders. There’s much on that list that is debatable (that is, debatable whether it constitutes an impeachable offense or not – **guilt** on each point is clear enough), but nothing that is absurd like the Clinton impeachment charges were absurd. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/69 "2008-06-11T13:40:28Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] The Usual Response from the Usual Suspects. [/quote] That’s certainly an easy way out of addressing the specific arguments that I and other posters have raised. > [@](#): > > Let him gibber and fling his feces around on C-SPAN, and hope nobody asks the obvious question - > > “With all the problems facing the country, this is all you can think of to do, you cretin?” As I pointed out earlier (in a post you apparently read, btw): > [@](#): > > 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. When the GOP gets out of the way of the Dems’ attempts to actually _deal_ with the problems of this country, your question will have merit. But not until then. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/70 "2008-06-11T13:47:49Z")
Well, if you feel it sounds better to admit that the Democrats aren’t capable of dealing with the problems of the country, then by all means repeat the point. Oddly enough, back when the Republicans first controlled Congress, they were capable of balancing the budget, passing welfare reform, fulfilling the Contract with America, **and** impeaching Clinton. Of course, they had the advantage of impeaching a President who actually did violate the law, so there is that. But again, if you think this will have the same effect for Bush and Democrats as it did for Clinton and Republicans, by all means, carry on. Like you seem to be saying, it’s not like Democrats can do anything worthwhile. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 11, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/71 "2008-06-11T13:59:23Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] There’s much on that list that is debatable (that is, debatable whether it constitutes an impeachable offense or not – guilt on each point is clear enough), but nothing that is absurd like the Clinton impeachment charges were absurd. [/QUOTE] Complete horseshit. The list is a mixed bag of accusations who’s only real purpose is to get left wingers some raw meat (granted, this may be a good thing since many left wingers don’t get enough meat in their diets). It’s debatable if ANY of these charges constitute an impeachable offense as is whether Bush is guilty of them. You see, until the charges are laid out and the defense gets a chance to defend himself with counter arguments and a verdict is made it’s just a lot of hot air…no matter what the frothing at the mouth partisans THINK the outcome will be. Myself, I’d be surprised if any of those charges could be made to stick…assuming there ever was a real impeachment trial, which there won’t be. This list is as absurd as the Clinton list was and for much the same reason…it plays right into the desires of the fringe fanatics who are obsessed with a president of the other party. In Clinton’s case the charges played right into the moralistic right wingers…in Bush’s it plays into the anti-war left wingers. The only difference is that the Republicans were actually stupid enough to carry through with the impeachment en masse…while the Dems have so far limited the damage to on moonbat and a few half hearted cheers from a few other Dems in the house and senate (and wild screeching from the foaming at the mouth left wing crowd). Hm…maybe the Dems ARE smarter at that. We’ll see if they stay smart. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/72 "2008-06-11T14:12:16Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Well, if you feel it sounds better to admit that the Democrats aren’t capable of dealing with the problems of the country, then by all means repeat the point. [/quote] That’s kinda like saying, “I burned your house down. Now if you feel it sounds better to admit that you aren’t capable of keeping a roof over your family’s head, then by all means repeat the point.” > [@](#): > > Oddly enough, back when the Republicans first controlled Congress, they were capable of balancing the budget, passing welfare reform, fulfilling the Contract with America, “Oddly enough, because _you_ didn’t burn down _my_ house, I was able to keep _my_ family housed.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/73 "2008-06-11T14:39:24Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Actually, no.](http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581) There’s much on that list that is debatable (that is, debatable whether it constitutes an impeachable offense or not – **guilt** on each point is clear enough), but nothing that is absurd like the Clinton impeachment charges were absurd. [/QUOTE] Wow. I could say the exact same thing about the articles of impeachment for Clinton: debatable as to whether it constitutes an impeachable offense, but his guilt on each point was clear enough. The bottom line is this: an impeachable offense is what Congress says it is. Congress won’t say any of these things are impeachable offenses. From a more objective standard, an impeachable offense SHOULD BE an act that’s criminal. At least Clinton’s impeachment had the dubious distinction of being technically a matter involving violations of criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/74 "2008-06-11T15:08:00Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] That’s kinda like saying, “I burned your house down. Now if you feel it sounds better to admit that you aren’t capable of keeping a roof over your family’s head, then by all means repeat the point.” [/quote] Well, no, it’s like saying “I can’t pass my agenda over your objections, but you could pass yours over mine”. In fact, that is what it’s saying. As mentioned, Democrats control both houses of Congress, but can’t get anything done, including impeachment. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and could get everything done, including impeachment. We didn’t have to make whiny excuses or play fantasy games about the election. How come Democrats have to? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/75 "2008-06-11T15:15:54Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] …At least Clinton’s impeachment had the dubious distinction of being technically a matter involving violations of criminal law. [/QUOTE] You’re right. That is the least. > [@](#): > > …Myself, I’d be surprised if any of those charges could be made to stick… Speak plainly. Is it your opinion that GeeDub is not guilty of any of these charges? ---
**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 11, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/76 "2008-06-11T15:32:43Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Speak plainly. Is it your opinion that GeeDub is not guilty of any of these charges? [/QUOTE] Actually, that was my quote not Brickers (though he would be able to answer this better than I can). Since you asked, I don’t know if he was guilty of some of those charges as the matter hasn’t been properly reviewed in a legal setting. As we are talking impeachment here it really isn’t a matter of GW’s guilt or innocence anyway (in a strictly legal sense)…but what Congress THINKS it is. My GUESS is that unless there is real evidence of criminal wrong doing it would mostly break down along party lines IF it was ever seriously considered, and I would say that impeachment would most likely NOT be carried through as there wouldn’t be enough votes (this of course assumes that there isn’t any real smoking gun type evidence that in fact GW et al ave done something illegal…I’ve never SEEN any, but that doesn’t mean such evidence doesn’t exist). Is that plane spoken enough? -XT ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/77 "2008-06-11T15:42:47Z")
No action will be taken against GW Bush for anything he may or may not have done during his tenure. This impeachment thing is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Bush will finish his term, hopefully doing no more damage than he’s already done. Someone else will be elected president; hopefully that someone will be an improvement or, at the very least, no worse. At best, this impeachment garbage will be a tiny footnote in history. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/78 "2008-06-11T15:47:46Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] …Since you asked, I don’t know if he was guilty of some of those charges as the matter hasn’t been properly reviewed in a legal setting. As we are talking impeachment here it really isn’t a matter of GW’s guilt or innocence anyway (in a strictly legal sense)…but what Congress THINKS it is. My GUESS is that unless there is real evidence of criminal wrong doing it would mostly break down along party lines IF it was ever seriously considered, and I would say that impeachment would most likely NOT be carried through as there wouldn’t be enough votes (this of course assumes that there isn’t any real smoking gun type evidence that in fact GW et al ave done something illegal…I’ve never SEEN any, but that doesn’t mean such evidence doesn’t exist). Is that plane spoken enough? -XT [/QUOTE] Not “some”, but “any”. Take your pick. Is GeeDub guilty of any of these charges, in your opinion? Not _provably_ guilty, not indicatable according to every jot and tittle of legal technicality that might be brought to bear. Just simply: is he guilty of any of these charges? In your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/79 "2008-06-11T15:48:13Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] The Democrats should stop worrying about who won the last two Presidential elections and spend more time working on winning the next one. [/QUOTE] That comes closest to my own opinion. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2008, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/80 "2008-06-11T15:50:18Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Speak plainly. Is it your opinion that GeeDub is not guilty of any of these charges? [/QUOTE] Well, you’re quoting **xtisme** , but I’ll take a quick run at what I think. “Not guilty” has a very criminal-law feel to it. Are you asking if I think these are crimes, and if they are, if he’s guilty? It’s unclear to me what crime is even being alleged for most of these. For example, “Article I: Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.” What’s the crime? Let’s say he did that – let’s say he deliberately created a false impression so we’d go to war in Iraq. Is that a violation of criminal law? Not so far as I can tell. Or maybe you meant “not guilty” in a looser sense – do I think this kinda-sorta describes something he might have done? Then, maybe. I think he cherry-picked intelligence to create a case for war. Is that a “secret propaganda campaign?” Yeah, I guess. But that’s why criminal statutes rarely create crimes with elements like “Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign.” The terms are imprecise. And there’s a key difference – intent. I don’t think Bush knew he was pushing falsehoods. I think he listened closely when people told him what he wanted to hear, and ignored the warnings of people he disagreed with. That’s foolish, but it’s not lying. So --there’s a bunch of stuff on that list I think Bush probably did. There’s a bunch of other stuff I don’t think he did. I don’t think there are any crimes on the list that he did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=5)