Congress can impeach and convict a President for "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors". Or in other words, anything a simple majority in the House, and 2/3 majority in the Senate can agree on. In theory, it can be anything they define as such. Witness the last attempt.frasier said:I am just trying to figure out, for what they could impeach Bush?
What is or was his impeachable offense?
Impeach Bush
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
They could nail him specifically for doctoring evidence leading to a war in Iraq by misleading Congress and the United Nations, in particular Colin "Spock" Powell. However, someone under Bush Jr. would take the heat, but Bush Jr. told Powell to "put on his war uniform", so Bush Jr. is involved. The Dems will push and expose everything here.frasier said:I am just trying to figure out, for what they could impeach Bush? What is or was his impeachable offense?
But what COULD cause Bush Jr. to face an impeachment trial in the Senate? FISA '78. And probably something "hidden" will come out even worse, like bribery with Abramoff. Remember Bush Jr. "I've never met him", then a bundle of pictures come out.
What else? Hmmmm. Domestic spying. Oops! Not on the people of the USA, but how about what Nixon did? Something like that will come out that he authorized the spying of Democrats.....why else avoid FISA?
But if it comes out even more severe that that, in which Bush Jr. actually had a hand in it, he will resign or face impeachment.
Yes, Bush Jr. CAN be impeached and it CAN happen. In fact, America will find a way to impeach him and force Cheney to resign as well to end the Iraq crap and to capture Osama Bin Laden, because it's obvious Bush Jr. and Cheney never wanted to capture Osama, ever.
Bush Jr. found a way into Iraq, America found a way to impeach this Administration and hold them accountable. 2800 soldiers for a lie? America is about to turn the other cheek.
Gyaos Baltar.
No, but the attempt may be. C'mon DQ, Clinton was impeached for lying about being sucked off by an intern. If that isn't arbitrary, I don't know what is. There really is no clear definition of what a President could or could not be impeached for. The reason it hasn't been accomplished is that it's bloody difficult to do, which is how it should be.DonQuixote said:
And ended up in being an extraordinary waste of time, money, and dignity to our system of government. Which is another reason why George would never be impeached unless he does something really outrageous. The US populace at this point doesn't have the stomach to go through such a political show again anytime soon.DonQuixote said:
Forgot which POTUS, but he was a GOP POTUS, who stated, "impeachment is solely a political action. Justice has little to do with impeachment".DonQuixote said:
All US impeachment's historically have basically been a political vendetta by the majority party against the minority party.
As far as not having a clue as to who [we] are at war with, that's easy to answer as long as you more correctly replace the [US] with the [neocons].
For it is the [neocons] who are at war with anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with them and not the entire USA who is at war............
This is borne out by the neocon mantra Dubya freely spouts off along with our local neocon members on this forum......
You are either with me,
or you are my enemy !!!
Pecker, I don't want to post in that Tillman thread, because it feels justthe same as an uninvited guest at a funeral that had no reason for being there. That letter leaves me in shock. I was beginning to think nobody noticed that your country has been lost to a few crazy people who 'somehow' took it all away...until I read that letter.
I am wrong in what I sense? Or is Bush about to unite 'We the people of the United States of America' in a most unexpected way - against him.
I am wrong in what I sense? Or is Bush about to unite 'We the people of the United States of America' in a most unexpected way - against him.
Quite right. The real problem that has never been completely addressed is what to do with a President that has become incompetent. This could mean anything from our own George, or someone like Wilson who was pretty much out of it during the last year of his Presidency due to stroke. One could argue Reagan was already seriously in dementia in his last years in office, but that was also an act he liked to play, so it's hard to tell. The 25th ammendment to the Constitution kind of dealt with this, but not quite. Really, there is nothing in place on the books that excludes a complete idiot from becoming President, or a complete incompetent for maintaining such rank.WoodPeckr said:
Kevin Tillman's letter was both shocking and stirring.
It demonstrates their are still truly patriotic people who are waking up to the fascist direction Team 'w' is taking the USA and want to 'correct' this disaster.
Colin Powell saw this years ago when even he referred to Dubya's Team 'w' neocons as a 'bunch of 'Fucking Crazies'! Those neocons, to this day, still hate Colin for making those sentiments public.
It demonstrates their are still truly patriotic people who are waking up to the fascist direction Team 'w' is taking the USA and want to 'correct' this disaster.
Colin Powell saw this years ago when even he referred to Dubya's Team 'w' neocons as a 'bunch of 'Fucking Crazies'! Those neocons, to this day, still hate Colin for making those sentiments public.
There are many in the USA that hope and pray that eventuality will occur..... for the good of the USA and for the good of the world!.....Mcluhan said:
Asterix, you might glean some matching or enhancing ideas in what DANIEL ELLSBERG has to say. See wiill Bush Bomb Iran thread.Asterix said:
Constitutional Basis for Impeachment
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/basis.html
The US Constitution is the foundation of our legal system. It was written and adopted by the Founding Fathers at the Federal Convention in 1787. The Constitution spells out the process by which Bush can be impeached. The full text of the Constitution is available online.
Article II, Sec. 4 states that:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.".
That means that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and other cabinet members could all be impeached. Impeachable offenses include clear violations of criminal law but also misconduct that undermines the integrity of the office or violations of public trust that unjures the state.
Article 1, Section 2 states:
"The House of Representatives shall chuse[sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
That means that the House of Representatives, not the Senate, is the body that starts the process. They are the one who would formally accuse Bush of high Crimes or Misdemeanors.
Article 1, Section 3 states:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
That means that the Senate conducts the actual trial after the impeachment in the House. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
That means the Senate can only remove Bush from office. Once he is out of office then he would be subject to lawsuits, war crimes tribunals, and other charges, in other courts.
Article 2, Section 2 states:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Means Bush cannot pardon himself or his cohorts.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/basis.html
The US Constitution is the foundation of our legal system. It was written and adopted by the Founding Fathers at the Federal Convention in 1787. The Constitution spells out the process by which Bush can be impeached. The full text of the Constitution is available online.
Article II, Sec. 4 states that:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.".
That means that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and other cabinet members could all be impeached. Impeachable offenses include clear violations of criminal law but also misconduct that undermines the integrity of the office or violations of public trust that unjures the state.
Article 1, Section 2 states:
"The House of Representatives shall chuse[sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
That means that the House of Representatives, not the Senate, is the body that starts the process. They are the one who would formally accuse Bush of high Crimes or Misdemeanors.
Article 1, Section 3 states:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
That means that the Senate conducts the actual trial after the impeachment in the House. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
That means the Senate can only remove Bush from office. Once he is out of office then he would be subject to lawsuits, war crimes tribunals, and other charges, in other courts.
Article 2, Section 2 states:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Means Bush cannot pardon himself or his cohorts.
I think we(USA) should think about building a fence.Mcluhan said:
The Canadian immigration system is much more accomodating then the US system. As long as most Canadian think, that it is ok to let somebody show up at Trudeau Airport from the ME, without any paperwork!! Then proceed to let him in, give him housing and money, until he/she becomes established...I think I would be more concerned about that, than about a view poor guys running through the dessert.
The only reason why Canada has not been hit, because it is considered a safe entry point in to NA.
This is not my opinion, this is how it was reported on the CBC....
You are missing my question.Mcluhan said:
If incompetence would be a reason to impeach the leader of a country, our prisons would be full...on both sides of the border.
There is nothing(that we know of)that Bush has done, that would warrant an impeachment.
If there would be the pundits on the other side of the aisle, would have done so already....don't you think so?
I agree, our immigration policy in this country needs to be overhauled. If given the chance, Harper will start to do something about it I'm sure. We have to stop giving immigrants hand outs that we're not willing to give citizens that were born here.frasier said:
Having said that, the U.S. has to take more responsibilty for what happened on 9/11. Yes, maybe some of the terrorist came in through Canada, but you guys taught them how to fly.
I think it was, and although I don't know the validity one-way-or-the-other I would make the point that their FBI and their secret service had advance warning on several of the highjackers, two at least, from the German Intellegence service, and they failed to connect up the dots themselves. Did they share this info with CSIS? I doubt it somehow. Plus the fact that they had warnings (so it would seem) from the Mos*sad on an actual hypothetical in Aug 2001 that turned out to match the scenario that played out 35 days later. They can hardly justify fingering pointing in our direction.
Face it. That administration considers us a boardline adversary to the NWO Régime. The population here was 92% against invading Iraq, and did not politically support it. They do not control our media, through political influence. We are the ONE AND ONLY Country that they depended on for support, that did not go prancing off to war following the pied piper in the W.H. We are also flagged on their banking system Terror Watch List now. The 49th as far as I'm concerned is a line in the sand drawn between a Liberal Democracy belonging to the last Century, and a 21st Century New World Order governed by a Fascist Régime. We are swimming aloof in dangerous waters, complete with their Gun Ships on our Great Lakes, first time since 1812. It's a wake up call.
You can rest assured they have a contingency plan for the Great White Northern Sheep as well...in the event our Arctic perimeter OR our natural resources become a National Security risk.
Face it. That administration considers us a boardline adversary to the NWO Régime. The population here was 92% against invading Iraq, and did not politically support it. They do not control our media, through political influence. We are the ONE AND ONLY Country that they depended on for support, that did not go prancing off to war following the pied piper in the W.H. We are also flagged on their banking system Terror Watch List now. The 49th as far as I'm concerned is a line in the sand drawn between a Liberal Democracy belonging to the last Century, and a 21st Century New World Order governed by a Fascist Régime. We are swimming aloof in dangerous waters, complete with their Gun Ships on our Great Lakes, first time since 1812. It's a wake up call.
You can rest assured they have a contingency plan for the Great White Northern Sheep as well...in the event our Arctic perimeter OR our natural resources become a National Security risk.
Mcluhan said:I, and a 21st Century New World Order governed by a Fascist Régime. We are swimming aloof in dangerous waters, complete with their Gun Ships on our Great Lakes, first time since 1812. It's a wake up call.
You can rest assured they have a contingency plan for the Great White Northern Sheep as well...in the event our Arctic perimeter OR our natural resources become a National Security risk.
As much as i respect your opinion and intellect,but you can't be serious?
You must have a bad morning.
Maybe if Canada would take a bit more control on who they led in,you would get off the watch list.
Fact is that Canada is a launch pad for activities within the US. if you belief any different, you don't know your own country.
