Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if we take provable out and if you are asking for just my opinion, then I’d say…yes, he probably is. My GUESS is that he has stretched several laws to the breaking point especially wrt the use of torture and most likely involving wire taps as well…again, as long as we take provable and technically legal definitions out.

-XT

82

[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.
[/quote]
“We can both clear a 4-foot hurdle, but you guys only put up a 3-foot hurdle which we cleared, and our guys put up a 6-foot hurdle, which you didn’t. So we can jump and you can’t.”

Because the Dems believe that government needs to run on compromise, because things actually need to get done. The GOP doesn’t, and is quite happy if everything gets blocked and nothing gets done.

I agree: you guys are better at blocking stuff than we are, because your heart’s in it, and ours isn’t. We’re just as good at getting things done, but see above.

83

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Because the Dems believe that government needs to run on compromise, because things actually need to get done. The GOP doesn’t, and is quite happy if everything gets blocked and nothing gets done.
[/quote]
So, compromise with the Republicans, and get something done. Or waste your time on this impeachment nonsense instead.

Well, you haven’t shown any sign of it. And the stuff about Democrats not blocking stuff is pretty silly - see Clinton vetoing welfare reform (twice) and shutting down the federal government to prevent balancing the budget and stalling judicial appointments and etc. etc.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and you are wasting time with blather about impeachment of a lame duck.

Regards,
Shodan

84

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, if we take provable out and if you are asking for just my opinion, then I’d say…yes, he probably is. My GUESS is that he has stretched several laws to the breaking point especially wrt the use of torture and most likely involving wire taps as well…again, as long as we take provable and technically legal definitions out.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Of course, provable has a wide variety of definition, from the preponderance of evidence to demanding an affidavit from God Almighty notarized by Gabriel.

What, then, is to be done? Some of us “rabid lefties” retain vague notions about “rule of law” and a constitutional limit on executive power. Oddly we consider the Oath of Office to be binding. What is to be done? Does he toddle off to Crawford with the thanks of a grateful nation? A Medal of Freedom, perhaps?

And if you wish to shelter your uncertainty behind a barrier of “proof”, what efforts would you support to ascertain such proofs? Testimony under oath, with perjury penalties hovering? Would one be too far off the mark to suggest that you would prefer to just forget the whole thing, let bygones be bygones?

Or do you stand with us moonbats and demand accountability? (Its not that bad, really, I’ve been doing it for years…)

85

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Of course, provable has a wide variety of definition, from the preponderance of evidence to demanding an affidavit from God Almighty notarized by Gabriel.
[/QUOTE]

Well, my definition would probably run to ‘provable in a court of law’.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
What, then, is to be done? Some of us “rabid lefties” retain vague notions about “rule of law” and a constitutional limit on executive power. Oddly we consider the Oath of Office to be binding. What is to be done? Does he toddle off to Crawford with the thanks of a grateful nation? A Medal of Freedom, perhaps?
[/QUOTE]

I have yet to see anything other than wildly partisan ‘proof’ that GW has, for instance, abused his constitutional limits on executive power any more than any other president in history. I’d say he’s actually abused it less than some but more than others. Nor have I seen anything other than wildly partisan ‘proof’ that he has broken his Oath of Office.

This of course doesn’t make him a good president, nor does it make the decisions he’s made good ones. But fucking up and president, making bad decisions isn’t illegal…it just makes him one of the worst presidents in history. By the same token there have been presidents who DID violate their constitutional powers (Lincoln and Roosevelt come to mind)…yet that didn’t necessarily make them bad presidents.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
And if you wish to shelter your uncertainty behind a barrier of “proof”, what efforts would you support to ascertain such proofs?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t need to ‘shelter’ behind anything 'luci. It’s you and folks like Kucinich who are pissing up a rope on this. If there IS proof of illegal activity…well, where is it? Why has it not been brought out by the Democrats? Is it worse that GW has supposedly done these things…or that the Democrats who have this supposed proof have sat on it for political reasons? I don’t buy it 'luci…if this proof is so obvious and overwhelming, if the evidence is so conclusive then why is it one lone nutcase standing up in the dead of the night to fling it down?

My Occam’s Razor cuts it such that there IS no conclusive evidence, no overwhelming proof…and that Kucinich is simply doing this to feel good and to toss a bone to the rabid anti-Bush crowd who are yearning for impeachment/impalement regardless of any of that proof stuff.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Or do you stand with us moonbats and demand accountability? (Its not that bad, really, I’ve been doing it for years…)
[/QUOTE]

Well…I certainly want accountability in a President, no doubt about that. And I think GW SHOULD have been held more accountable. One of the reasons that while I’m not to happy with Bush, I’m more disgusted at the house and senate…bot the one controlled by the Republicans before and the one controlled by the Democrats now.

-XT

86

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Some of us “rabid lefties” retain vague notions about “rule of law” and a constitutional limit on executive power. Oddly we consider the Oath of Office to be binding.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s the crux of the problem. The Bush Admin guys aren’t just ignoring the Constitution, they actually have propounded a set of constitutional theories under which everything W has done is properly within his sphere of discretion. None of this has yet been tested in court and they’ve taken great pains to avoid letting that happen, while – as far as I understand it – maintaining that these matters are outside the competence of the courts to review in any case. This, even though they might expect a sympathetic hearing from a SCOTUS including Roberts and Alito, both of whom had endorsed the “unitary executive” theory before their appointments. See this thread. (And read the book it’s about, it’s a real eye-opener.)

87

[QUOTE=Shodan]
So, compromise with the Republicans, and get something done.
[/quote]
You misspelled ‘capitulate.’ No, thanks.

As I’ve pointed out, it’s not a waste of time.

Three feet, four feet, six feet…

Can you say, “cherry-picking”?

I happen to believe that lame-duckhood doesn’t constitute exoneration. YMMV.

This President has committed what I regard as high crimes: authorizing torture, turning the prosecutorial authority of the government into a partisan endeavor, warrantless wiretapping, and, yes, lying this country into war, arguing that the possibility of Iraqi WMDs falling into terrorist hands was such a ‘grave and gathering threat’ that we had to invade quickly - and then for some reason we couldn’t be bothered to leave troops to guard the alleged WMD sites, many of which were looted to the ground between the time our advance troops arrived (and left), and the time our special WMD task forces arrived to check them out.

That’s all pretty serious stuff, IMHO. I’m sure YMMV, but there’s no reason why I should regard it as a waste of time.

88

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, my definition would probably run to ‘provable in a court of law’…
[/quote]

Well, we’re getting somewhere. I would happily support that standard if we can, as a court of law can, compel testimony under threat of perjury. Are we agreed, then, that this is the way to proceed? Or have you some other hurdles?

Oh, so the new standard is that he must have done so more than anyone else? From whence does this derive? Correct me if I’m wrong (no, really, don’t hesitate…), but doesn’t that oath mumble something about “preserve and protect” the Constitution, to the best of his abilities? Is it your impression that he has done so?

Innocent errors, is that it? Misled by faulty intelligence? Seriously?

Are you kidding? No, seriously, you putting me on? Would you swear on the Holy Free Market and the Austrian School of Economics that you have seen nothing…nothing!…that would constitute proof?

Its worse that he did those things. Oh, yeah. I’m on pretty safe ground, there.

His case would have been stronger had it been noon? That seems very important to you, for some reason. And the proof may very well be “overwhelming”, if we had access to it. And demanding that access has your approval, yes? Or no?

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, and your characterizations. How many innocent civilians have died from Mr Kucinich’s actions, do you imagine? How many needless wars has he provoked? And he’s rabid? And I as well? With all due awe, I think not.

And yet, the sum of your attention here would assure that he does, in fact, toddle off to Crawford with the thanks of a grateful nation. If this isn’t what you want, then what the hell do you want?

Keep in mind, there’s no doubt that are Quixotic elements to Mr Kucinich’s quest, to be sure. But also keep in mind that the procedure of impeachment offers an avenue for just those very things you hold so dear: proof. Which you want, yes? Have you an alternative method to gain that truth? And if you have not, wouldn’t you then be compeled to support Dennis the K’s effort, if no other means of compeling that truth are available?

Howzabout they proceed but not finalize the impeachment until 11:59 am on the morning of Jan 20th? Assuming, of course, that all these proofs you are so anxious to have discovered are found. I have every confidence that they would be. And you?

89

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, we’re getting somewhere. I would happily support that standard if we can, as a court of law can, compel testimony under threat of perjury. Are we agreed, then, that this is the way to proceed? Or have you some other hurdles?
[/QUOTE]

None. If there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity then drag his ass to court. If there is sufficient evidence to convict him then do so. If there is sufficient evidence to burn him at the stake then I’ll bring the marshmallows.

Thing is…until there IS sufficient evidence AND a trial then it’s all just mental masturbation. People can make all the accusations they like…but until A) I see him in court and B) I see him convicted that’s all it is IMHO…just smoke and noise.

And frankly I’m tired of hearing the noise without anything to back it up. And I’m tired of hearing how the Evil Republicans are preventing all this stuff from happening. I think it’s a load of bullshit and handwaving…nothing but an excuse because the faithful don’t want to admit to one of two unsavory (to them) facts: Either the Democrats are in on it or two cowardly to do anything (in which case they are no better than Bush et al), or there simply IS no such smoking gun evidence and it’s all been bluster and bullshit.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Oh, so the new standard is that he must have done so more than anyone else? From whence does this derive? Correct me if I’m wrong (no, really, don’t hesitate…), but doesn’t that oath mumble something about “preserve and protect” the Constitution, to the best of his abilities? Is it your impression that he has done so?
[/QUOTE]

Is MY impression that HE has fulfilled HIS oath? Why no…it’s not. However, the key point there is if HE feels HE has fulfilled HIS oath…since he was the one taking it.

It’s purely subjective for someone outside to decide whether or not he has fulfilled his oath of office…unless he has fragrantly and criminally show to not have done so in such a way as to warrant his removal from office. Keeping an eye on that is a duty of the Senate and the Congress (who also swear oaths last time I checked).

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Innocent errors, is that it? Misled by faulty intelligence? Seriously?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=XT]
…This of course doesn’t make him a good president, nor does it make the decisions he’s made good ones. But fucking up and president, making bad decisions isn’t illegal…it just makes him one of the worst presidents in history. By the same token there have been presidents who DID violate their constitutional powers (Lincoln and Roosevelt come to mind)…yet that didn’t necessarily make them bad presidents…
[/QUOTE]

Where does it say ‘innocent errors’ in there? Where does it say ‘misled by faulty intelligence’? I must be missing it. What it SAYS is he fucked up and made bad decisions…but they were his fuckups to make, he had the authority to do so. WE had a recourse to…we could have not re-elected this idiot to a second term! Congress also had a recourse if what he was doing was beyond the scope of his office…and THEY chose not to do anything either.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Are you kidding? No, seriously, you putting me on? Would you swear on the Holy Free Market and the Austrian School of Economics that you have seen nothing…nothing!..that would constitute proof?
[/QUOTE]

I so swear…I’ve seen a few things that lead me to reply to you that I THINK he may have done some illegal or extra-legal/beyond the scope of his office type things. But proof? Hell no…I’ve seen none because there IS none. Proof would need to be weighed in a legal setting and structure and adjudicated after weighing all the evidence and hearing the defense. When I see THAT then I will see what I consider to ‘constitute proof’…anything else is mere speculation.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Its worse that he did those things. Oh, yeah. I’m on pretty safe ground, there.
[/QUOTE]

Well then, as generally is the case we disagree. I think it’s equally bad if someone commits a crime and if someone else suppresses the evidence to allow them to go free.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
His case would have been stronger had it been noon? That seems very important to you, for some reason. And the proof may very well be “overwhelming”, if we had access to it. And demanding that access has your approval, yes? Or no?
[/QUOTE]

His case would have been stronger had he done this before a full sitting and with the full support and backing of his party instead of in the dead of the night by himself going off like a loose cannon. Yeah…it’s kind of important as it’s the difference between him popping off to no real effect and an ACTUAL trial in a structured setting that actually DOES SOMETHING!

If his proof is overwhelming then why is there no follow through on this? Why is it a lone nutball doing it instead of his party, not to mention the full Congress and Senate with support of the judiciary? I don’t buy the ‘because the Republicans are blocking it’ meme…sorry. If there is real and substantial proof of criminal activity and the Dems know about it…well, then they are as guilty as GW is.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, and your characterizations. How many innocent civilians have died from Mr Kucinich’s actions, do you imagine? How many needless wars has he provoked? And he’s rabid? And I as well? With all due awe, I think not.
[/QUOTE]

Well, he does have foam on his muzzle…

I certainly wouldn’t trust him to bit me on the leg. If you think he’s safe though it’s your lookout.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
And yet, the sum of your attention here would assure that he does, in fact, toddle off to Crawford with the thanks of a grateful nation. If this isn’t what you want, then what the hell do you want?
[/QUOTE]

Did I say that? When? A ‘grateful nation’?? :rolleyes:

What I WANT is for the anti-Bush crowd to chill out and stop this constant noise about this. What I WANT is that IF Bush indeed has done all these evil and illegal things that the Dems actually do something about it…and if not then that the rabid left STFU about it already and moves on to something else. Like perhaps ensuring that Obama gets elected this term instead of McCain.

I’d also like a pony, if you don’t mind…

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Howzabout they proceed but not finalize the impeachment until 11:59 am on the morning of Jan 20th? Assuming, of course, that all these proofs you are so anxious to have discovered are found. I have every confidence that they would be. And you?
[/QUOTE]

Howzabout this…if there is sufficient evidence to impeach Bush then the Dems actually do so. If there is sufficient evidence for criminal proceedings then put him on trial, and if he is found guilty do what you like with him. But if nothing comes of this silly impeachment effort (as nothing came from the one against Chaney last year) they ya’ll give up on it already. Whether he is guilty as sin or not it ain’t gonna happen at that point so…let it go and move on.

Howzabout that? Deal? (I’m no vera sanguine about your answer here, but hope springs eternal…)

-XT

90

If Obama doesn’t support this, it means one of two things: Either he wants to be as much a law-breaker as Bush, or he fears that that the populace support Bush’s lawbreaking.

If the former, damn him.

If the latter, & then if he’s right, damn this country, damn you all.

Jeremiah Wright for President.

91

[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
If Obama doesn’t support this . . .
[/QUOTE]

He doesn’t really have to take a position yet – impeachment is House business; if the resolution passes, then W is tried in the Senate.

92

Right…and besides, there is of course a third option (actually, there are a bunch of other options): You are assuming Bush to actually be guilty of crimes AND for there to be sufficient evidence to try him/impeach him. This could be a bad assumption and perhaps Obama knows this while you don’t…making an option 3 possible.

-XT

93

The resolution appears to be on hold.

94

Look who is blocking this:

95

Ironically, reading the article, it was the REPUBLICANS that voted to move it forward, while the DEMOCRATS voted to shelve it.

:stuck_out_tongue: !!

Now…why do you suppose that is (btw, this is exactly the same thing that happened when it was Chaney’s turn at bat)…?

-XT

96

Does anyone still want to argue that Kucinich is acting his conscience?

97

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Does anyone still want to argue that Kucinich is acting his conscience?
[/QUOTE]

I dunno. What does he personally have to gain by this? Will it help him get re-elected in November? (Serious question, I don’t know much about the political scene in Cleveland.)

98

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I dunno. What does he personally have to gain by this? Will it help him get re-elected in November? (Serious question, I don’t know much about the political scene in Cleveland.)
[/QUOTE]

Kucinich is going to get reëlected no matter what. He could pull a serious Robert Wexler (co-sponsor by the way) and still get reëlected.

What it does do for him is build up his image and reputation with the anti-Bush crowd.

99

[QUOTE=xtisme]
…Howzabout this…if there is sufficient evidence to impeach Bush then the Dems actually do so. If there is sufficient evidence for criminal proceedings then put him on trial, and if he is found guilty do what you like with him…
[/QUOTE]

Begs the question several times so far: how do we get the evidence? Is GeeDub going to mount a sequel to Nixon’s Operation Candor? There is zero chance that he is going to tell us the truth the whole truth and nothing but. So, we need a legal procedure that can compel the truth. You say “court of law” level of proof, Shirley you must appreciate that such a level is possible only if people are compelled to testify under oath.

Perhaps you have some shred of hope that the truth would be forthcoming regardless. I have no such hope.

So you leave us cleaved upon the fork: no actions without evidence, and no evidence without action. Perhaps you don’t mean “shrug it off, no biggie” but that is the practical effect of your position.

100

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Ironically, reading the article, it was the REPUBLICANS that voted to move it forward, while the DEMOCRATS voted to shelve it.

:stuck_out_tongue: !!

Now…why do you suppose that is (btw, this is exactly the same thing that happened when it was Chaney’s turn at bat)…?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

If a Committe is formed in the Judiciary, might they hold hearings? Call witnesses? Issue subpoenas? Colin Powell? Paul Wolfowitless? Richard “Big Dick” Cheney?

Impeachment as an accomplished fact is widely recognized as improbable at best. But the proceedings to determine if such an impeachment were justified is quite another matter.