What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
134 Comments
- Malarie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63Congratulations Guys,
-Canadian - johnlandes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+54Any dem who votes against this should be turfed
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -5/+46Actually, it has a pretty strong chance of going through.
There's a great deal of bipartisan support for Gonzales's removal. - EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35According to the Founding Fathers (Madison especially), a President who protects an underling from impeachment (or other criminal prosecution) becomes immediately impeachable. The logic is simple. If a President could ask an underling to break the law on his behalf and then pardon him or protect him, there would be no accountability and no point of having an impeachment clause at all.
If the President protects Gonzales from the ramifications of his perjury, it's as if the President committed the perjury.
I say: bring it on.
References? From the FP: http://www.digg.com/politics/Flashback_to_1974_Constitutional_Grounds_for_Impeachment - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32anyone that votes against it should be turfed.
- janeuner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33Can such an impeachment inquiry be hindered by Executive Privledge? Please link references!
- JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37I doubt it'll go through. But we can still hope.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26LONG overdue!
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18How about ANYBODY who votes against this should be deported. To deep space.
- shawnfassett, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Doing WA proud (Cantwell I'm shaking my finger at you!!!)
- mikelieman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Gonzales said that he misspoke when he said at a press conference in June that he and former deputy attorney general James Comey were referring to the same warrantless wiretapping program.
“I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter,” Gonzales told Schumer.
“What did you say to the reporter?” Schumer asked.
“I did not speak directly to the reporter,” replied Gonzales.
“Ok,” Schumer continued, “what did your spokesperson say to the reporter?”
“I don’t know,” offered Gonzales lamely. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+141 down....2 to go>>>>
- chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Republicans have a tradition is lying before Congress. Look at Oliver North. He's even on Fox now.
- ForkySpoony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Not by the constitution I think. I think it rather clearly states that the executive branch could not interfere with an impeachment, at least by the presidential pardon clause.
"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." - ejm508, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11b-b-b-but clinton???!!1!!!1
Seriously, shut up, Clinton has been out of office for 7 years - art42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The inquiry cannot be stopped, but the WH will at least try to use EP to hinder witness testimony. Look at how it's been used so far.
The WH will probably do everything in it's power to hinder the iinquest. - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Well we all know what ***** good the Constitution does us with this administration in office...
- phlux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Here is my submission to Nancy Pelosi through her contact form located here: http://speaker.gov/contact/
"Rep. Pelosi (and staff)
According to this article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/inslee-to-introduce-gonzales-impeachment-tomorrow/
Alberto Gonzales will be sought after in an impeachment case.
Mrs. Pelosi, If you do not support this action, I and others of the community whom you claim to represent will come to your office in person and demand your personal resignation as you will have failed us.
Just as you failed the American people with your support of war profiteering by the Bechtel corporation among others.
This country is out of hand right now, and in case you are too blind to realize it; the American people are now standing up and holding you and all other so-called representatives personally responsible. This, in fact, is the meaning of representation. A concept which appears to be lost upon you and all your colleagues in Congress.
The time to act is now. Please do the right thing and stand up for what was once a free nation.
I expect a response, in action.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen.
Phlux (real name goes here)" - Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Lets not forget it was all over a BJ!
and dont give me the "he lied about it" crap, because he should of NEVER been put in the position to lie about it!
What happens in a man's bedroom has no business in court, as long as both parties consent! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6They aren't talking about removal. They're talking about TALKING about removal.
In other words, they're jerking you off-AGAIN. - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"HAVE," THE ***** WORD IS "HAVE." IF I READ ONE MORE GODDAMN RETARD WRITE THE WORDS "SHOULD OF," I SWEAR I'M GOING TO START KILLING PEOPLE.
If you want to type like you speak, at least use the goddamn contraction "should've" lest the entire world think you're a complete ***** moron. - Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7For the love of...don't you have any different material?
And are you so partisan that you can't see how badly Gonzo is serving this country?
I got it, just pretend Gonzo was a Democrat for a moment, look at everything he's done (and not done), and then realize you're an idiot. - pixelguru, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Dammit, the Democrats have to do something and impeaching Bush or Cheney would do little but install an incumbent Neocon in the Whitehouse ahead of 2008. Gonzales is low-hanging fruit, so knock the lying sack of crap off and keep working up the branches. By 2008, leave nobody in office but Bush and Cheney, then put them on trial for their crimes the moment they leave office.
- Jmuduke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Look at them trying to downplay this. The majority of Americans want him out, then VP, then Prez. There's ample evidence of his guilt and they caught him in a lie. He's going down.
- Rsardinia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5exactly what I was thinking. Can executive privilege stop this from happening?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Isn't it funny how the congress has time to impeach Gonzales but not Bush or Cheney.
- Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Broken his oath, failed to uphold the constitution!
Lied to the american public and congress in order to start an illegal war that has billed more than 3500 troops and God knows how many civilians! for the sole effort of funding his own company!
Seems to me that war crimes is a impeachable offense! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's klintoons fault he lied. It's.....who again?
- mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Note: the US Govt no longer believes in the phrase "Slam Dunk" ask Mr. George Tenet and the CIA.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The only reason it bothers me so much is that I know people are getting stupider as I get older and they type that way, not out of laziness, but because they think that's what is actually coming out of people's mouths. And they are too stupid to realize how retardedly nonsensical "should of" is.
- TheSkinsFactory, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Got to start somewhere. Now guys just work your way up and don't stop until you get to the top.
- Plinkotic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Thank you. It's not a big deal to everyone, but lately I've been noticing people use that phrasing a lot, and... wow. It takes restraint to not shout at someone right there.
"THE ***** IS WRONG WITH YOU? WERE YOU HOMESCHOOLED BY CLETUS SPUCKLER?!"
/'I teach the big'uns, the big'uns teach the little'uns, but no one taught me which makes it an exercise in futility." - jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Technically, Clinton didn't perjure himself and he certainly wasn't convicted of such a crime. That's what the whole "depends on the what the meaning of 'is' is", was about. It was a weasel move on his part and I condemn him for trying to skate by by being slick.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+4A witch hunt! Political theater! A partisan fishing expedition!
- cha5e, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I'm very much for Gonzales being impeached, but I'm afraid that if that happens, congress will think the people's appetite for impeachment has been whetted, and then won't go after the bigger fish, who frankly deserve impeachment much more. And frankly, if we can only have one of these guys impeached, it should be Cheney.
- Chester12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Best Gonzales blunder during the whole border security debate - 'Wolf: "Were your grand parents illegal immigrants?" Gonzales: "You know, it's unclear." '
- jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4He will be impeached by the House as all that is needed is a majority votes and the Dems have the votes. Will he be convicted in the Senate? Hard to say. Conviction requires a 2/3 votes, so 17 Republicans Senators would have to vote to convict. Of course, if they don't vote to convict, they've clearly tied themselves to BushCo and I suspect those 22 up for reelection in 2008 might really suffer for it.
- art42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What's that make the Republicans and Independents that support it?
- Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As a member of the GOP.... I do support the impeachment of Alerto Gonzales and if possible attahced with a very long prison sentance for lies and railroading our border agents. Alberto Gonzales is nothing more then a bad dream supported by another bad dream... Bush. As a member of the GOP our party was highjaked by teh neocon agrenda.... However, I have noted even left sided support of the neocon agrenda. It almost appears both parties are bought and paid for by big companies, etc.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What majority would that be?
If you're going to tout his 34% approval remember, congress has a 14% approval. Shouldn't they go first? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Read this slowly so that you understand what I'm saying.
***** the rest of the world.
They owe us far too much for us to care what they have to say. If it weren't for the US they would still be eating their own children.
If this is too much for you to handle, then go live with the "rest of the world".
And before you start with your unearned smug, pompous attitudes, I have been around the world 7 times. And the one thing that stands out is that the majority of it smells like piss. - TexasScott, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't believe they have a right to tap a phone line across state lines, or otherwise, without a search warrant. If removing him is what it takes to teach a lesson on violating the peoples' rights and the constitution; so be it. Although this is a broken record, it certainly undermines our founding fathers. How is this any different than the writs of assistance issued by the British in the colonial era?
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg down for your idiotic misuse of the word "their."
- Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There are multiple programs that spy on the United States citizens within the Justice Department, including the use of the FBI, local law enforcement, and even the use of allies like the Aussies and Brits who will gladly use US technical assets to perform eavesdropping activities with a wink and a nod. He should be dragged back in to testify about the legality of each and every program that involves surveillance of U.S citizens, from those programs within the FBI that outsource the technical collection to companies like Choicepoint to even those that obtain intelligence product from allies. There is little doubt that what government officials have done was at one time illegal, if they are not still illegal- in the case of domestic spying. No doubt the firing of Carol Lam was to cover up and prevent the disclosure for further misconduct by high level officials. The question is will the Congress enforce the laws? I agree with the previous post this is a traitor hunt.
- Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You seriously think it is a witch hunt?...wake up it is a traitor hunt. This administration (and nearly every agency within it) in 7 long painful years has ***** this country (plenty of examples posted above) for perhaps generations to follow. We are despised now and finally for a good reason. He is living breathing proof to all the Anti-American types throughout the world that the majority of Americans truly are ignorant for electing him not once but twice. We handed over our freedoms to the terroists on 9/11 and not the ones who believe in ***** allah and his pedophile prophet. Everything has been a ***** buzzkill since that day. There is no such thing as good news anymore...all of it is a ***** bummer. Verily this administration has made every single connected being on this planet bummed out for the last 5 years. Traitor indeed.
- HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I don't understand these people who think Bush has changed. I think they're trying to convince themselves that they didn't vote for the worst President in American history... twice. The truth of the matter is that they certainly did, at least once. The funny thing is they voted him in the second time after he stole the first election, allowed 9/11 to happen despite a mountain in intelligence information. If you voted for Bush you did the country a disservice, deal with it.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It could be hindered, but not outright blocked.
Besides, claiming executive privilege could work against the Administration. - xxdesmus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Start with this small time douche bag, and work your way up ... next Cheney....then captain ***** himself.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Gonzales clearly serves at the pleasure of the Congress and if they've got the votes, he's gone for good.The only feedback against this tremendous power is that of the voters.
The important other angle is that they approve or reject his replacement, but cannot choose. - loutang82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's too bad... Bush'll just pardon him anyways
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is