Sure, but I think it’s been clear from our country’s previous adventures with impeachment that they are largely political, and, in fact, do not necessarilt have to involve an actual crime – although, agian for political reasons, I’d say that from a practical standpoint they probably do have to allege a crime.
But that’s why I phrased the question as I did. The post said:
You can certainly read that to mean, “…ample evidence to suffice for the practical political requirements of the impeachment process…”
But you could also infer that the poster meant to say, “…ample evidence of actual, criminal acts, acts that violate the criminal laws of the United States…” My question was intended to clarify which was meant.
Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate have very, very little to do with a criminal trial; show me where the Constitution defines “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and what the rules of evidence for such crimes are.
Right…so, there is even less chance of Bush getting impeached than there is of him being convicted of a crime right now, since not enough Pub’s would cross over to make it a realistic possibility (not that Bricker was seemingly even talking to the impeachment thing so its kind of a strawman question I think).
So, seriously…people should stop talking about it at this point and instead concentrate on the joy that is: We only have a little over a year and a half to go before Bush is gone!
Well, see his reply to John Mace in Post #81…he seems to have been thinking about this in a different way.
Regardless, you are right…impeachment is a political process, not legal. However, you being right simply means its STILL impossible for the Dem’s to get it done in the present environment, right? And since we are running out of time on the Bush administration its unlikely (to say the least) that Bush WILL be impeached at this point.
I just realized something. I always thought the impeachment phase was akin to an indictment and the Senate vote was akin to a jury verdict. Does a vote in the Senate to convict not equal a criminal verdict?
But evidence of lawbreaking would certainly be relevant to an impeachment, even if there was never a criminal trial. A president can be impeached on the basis of evidence of crimes, even if he was never convicted of those crimes in a criminal court.
Well, we’ll have to wait until the poster clarifies. In the absence of clarification, I think the most reasonable interpretation is that he’s talking about impeachment.
And I think the poster is mistaken if he thinks impeaching Bush and Cheney and removing them from office would end the war. The Democratic position on the war, to the extent that there is one, is that we should still have some troops in Iraq to fight the al Qaeda element there. And the idea that you can distinguish between al Qaeda violence and non-al Qaeda violence is questionable. Perhaps you can to some extent, but the line is very blurry.
Mark my words-- we are going to have troops in Iraq for a very long time to come. The Dems might be able to get some troops out and wind down some of the activities, and I would largely applaud that effort, but I don’t think the hard-core anti-war element, which is well represented on this board, is going to be very happy with that.
Sure…and if such evidence comes out then hang him from the highest tree. I’m just not holding my breath for such evidence to come out between now and next year.
Then so be it. I’m entirely serious when I piously intone about this issue being above and beyond mere politics. We are destroying our nation internationally, the nation that should be leading is feared and despised. It actually is that important.
If there were but one vote, and it was mine…and the deal was get the troops home as quickly as safe and practical…BUT that would ensure that Newt Gingrich was elected to be President…I would take an oxycontin and three stiff shots of bourbon…and I would vote for it.
No one can fault you for sticking to your convinctions 'luci. For my part, I can understand WHY the Dem’s did what they did…but, yeah, looking at it your way they should have been able to make the sacrifice, even if it hurt them in the long run. I actually feel slightly disappointed in myself for going with the political expedience thing now listening to you. You are better at holding my convictions (though from the opposite side of the political spectrum) than I am right now…
Interestingly, this will allow the Pubs to claim it was they who got the Min Wage increase passed, since that was part of the bill. Why do Hillary and Obama hate minimum wage earners?
There’s another factor here that I can’t quite put my finger on, podnuh. Its like the Dems know what the people want, but don’t know it loud enough. The seem to think that intensity of feeling is somehow isolated to the very left, that only MoveOn.org is really pissed about this.
I think they not only would have gotten away with risking the “unpatriotic” stance, I think they would have actually benefited. But, Lord knows, my view has a distinct slant, gotta double check myself when I see what I expect to see.
But in one respect, the collective reponsibility is ours. Yes, we voted, and then politely folded our hands and awaited results. So this could still work out. Assuming I’m right and the public mood on this is as fierce as I sense, they’re gonna catch an earful, and toot damn sweet. They all will, on both sides of the aisle.
Pencils have erasers. Minds are changed. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
[veering off topic]
But, you know, just between you and me…it may not get to that, I think there’s a very good chance that the Iraqis are going to invite us Elsewhere. The Shia are ready to settle things the old fashioned way, and they don’t need witnesses. [/vot]
Yes, I’ve been thinking lately that the Iraqi parliament might very well vote us out of Iraq before our Congress does. Sadr looks like he’s trying a very clever power play:
