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

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Shodan]
The extreme Left are idiots. They are obsessed with Bush to the exclusion of anything else. Kucinich is a moron, leading a team of morons, who are wasting the country’s time trying to get revenge on a lame duck for beating him and his fellow buffoons in the Presidential elections.Regards, Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I’m not extreme left. Far from it. IMHO, the right are fools for continuing to support what looks to be illegal acts by the President and his administration.

What does being a lame duck have to do with this? Justice is Justice. Following your lame duck idea, should a bank president that defrauds a bank be let off if he retires?

Obsession? You can’t be serious.

Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job. His PERSONAL indiscretion did not start a war, it did not kill hundreds of thousands, and it did not threaten our security and did not cost upwards of 500 billion dollars.

102

Am I the only liberal who’s outraged by all Democrats and Kucinich himself voteing to send the impeachment resolution to limbo?

What’s going on?

103

[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
Am I the only liberal who’s outraged by all Democrats and Kucinich himself voteing to send the impeachment resolution to limbo?

What’s going on?
[/QUOTE]

They realized that the elf invited them to a barbecue but there was no steak, only sizzle.

104

[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
Am I the only liberal who’s outraged by all Democrats and Kucinich himself voteing to send the impeachment resolution to limbo?

What’s going on?
[/QUOTE]
Political expediency?

105

[QUOTE=BarnOwl]
Am I the only liberal who’s outraged by all Democrats and Kucinich himself voteing to send the impeachment resolution to limbo?

What’s going on?
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean about sending it to limbo?

106

Classic - Kucinich reads the Articles, the Republicans say “bring it on!” and the Democrats cave.

Face it - neither side wants to have to go through all of the history of the war and once again admit that they read the same intel, they voted for the war (before voting against it), etc. If you thought “it depends on what is is” was a mess, just wait for hearings where Bush says, “yeah, I agreed with Clinton and the joint intelligence committee that there was bad stuff over there. Guess we all screwed up, huh?”

Just take a look at the Rockefeller Report (or read this bit from the Washington Post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html

107

[QUOTE=enipla]
What do you mean about sending it to limbo?
[/QUOTE]

It’s going to the Judiciary Committee where it will langusih. Pelosi has already commanded: No impeachment.

108

[QUOTE=enipla]
What do you mean about sending it to limbo?
[/QUOTE]
Post 93.

109

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Post 93.
[/QUOTE]

From that same source:

“An earlier resolution to impeach Cheney has languished in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since May 2007.”

Let us know when thisresolution is revived.

110

I don’t know… if Kucinich spent all that time and energy preparing this voluminous tome of charges (each detailing at least some vague form of evidence,) which took five hours just to read out loud… I can’t see him voting not to pursue it unless a) the party pressured him at the last minute to shut up, or b) he never intended to vote for it in the first place.

I’m going with the “get it on the record for posterity, and maybe if we’re lucky it can hurt McBush’s chances in the fall too” theory.

111

[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
Maybe this night means nothing to others here, but I for one am proud as hell of my party and Mr Kucinich for having the balls and the decency to finally stand up and say what needs to be said.

[/QUOTE]

How do you feel now that your party voted to shelve the resolution and the Republicans all voted to carry it forward?

112

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t call me Shirley. :wink:

Here is the thing…unless Kucinich et al are on a fishing expedition they they should HAVE this information. Your example of Nixon is applicable…despite Nixon’s attempt to suppress and otherwise eliminate investigations and information it STILL got out. Do you think GW is smarter than Nixon?? :dubious:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Perhaps you have some shred of hope that the truth would be forthcoming regardless. I have no such hope.
[/QUOTE]

Either Kucinich has strong evidence or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t…then this is simply a lot of wind and smoke. Which I think it’s self evident that it is. There is a reason why the Republicans WANT this pushed through and the Democrats don’t.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

If you don’t have any evidence then you can’t bring a serious charge…it’s not MY fork here. Would you prefer a system where possibly spurious charges could be brought at whim by the police or by which ever party is strong enough to push them through?

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

Did you read the article? It’s pretty clear that the Dems voted to shelve…not to bring it to a committee or have hearings. Again, if you read the article the Republicans were the ones voting FOR this, while the Dems overwhelmingly voted to shelve it. Why do you suppose that is? Are the Republicans suddenly against Bush and want him impeached? Do the Dems suddenly support Bush and want to protect him?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Impeachment means whatever Congress says it means. It’s telling that the Dems are blocking it while the Republicans, far from shaking in their boots, are trying to bring this to an actual debate and proceed.

-XT

113

[QUOTE=Bricker]
How do you feel now that your party voted to shelve the resolution and the Republicans all voted to carry it forward?
[/QUOTE]
Cite please?

I’d like to see that.

114

You are kidding right? Not only has it already been cited, but you have already been specifically directed to where it was cited…twice I believe.

ETA: What the hell, I’ve already quoted part of this anyway. From the cite that seems hard for some to read.

-XT

115

[QUOTE=enipla]
Cite please?

I’d like to see that.
[/QUOTE]

116

[QUOTE=enipla]
Cite please?

I’d like to see that.
[/QUOTE]

Are you not reading the thread??

Post 93.

CNN.

117

[QUOTE=enipla]
Cite please?

I’d like to see that.
[/QUOTE]
Got it. SDMB was down. Something stuck.

118

[QUOTE=enipla]
Got it. SDMB was down. Something stuck.
[/QUOTE]

Now that you’ve seen it, what’s your comment?

119

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Now that you’ve seen it, what’s your comment?
[/QUOTE]

Dunno about enipla, but I think it’s typical Congressional tap-dancing and it’s meaningless. Whether or not an impeachment is politically feasible (and it’s not), it’ll be interesting to see whether the next President releases a metric shitload of documents to a grand jury.

120

If such documents exist then I’m all for them being released. I don’t see why, if Bush has done illegal things, they can’t go after him once he’s out of office…is there some immunity that ex-Presidents get or something?

-XT