What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
328 Comments
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -18/+96"Bush lied (not illegal, unless you are under oath)"
Actually, that would fall under High Crimes. High Crimes do not necessarily have to be indictable crimes. By definition they are abuses of power or the kinds of misconduct which can only be committed by a public official by virtue of the unique power and trust which he holds. And, according to the framers of the constitution, it defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities.
Also, note that the proposed wording was originally, "the offense of maladministration"; but was changed to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Technically, gross incompetence is an impeachable offense if Congress decides so. - missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -62/+107Digg me down, but I am asking this question seriously and not as a political jab. But what action would warrent impeachment? I've asked this question over and over and here's what I've gotten in response:
Bush lied (not illegal, unless you are under oath)
Bush kills American soldiers and civilians (tragic, but not a high crime or misdemeanor)
Bush policies violate the Constitution (this is a role for Judicial Review not Impeachment)
Bush violates balance of power (again, a role for Judicial Review - and not illegal)
I hate Bush (not grounds for impeachment)
See, the call for impeachment is cathartic for some to be sure, but I don't know what the substance of the argument would be. You don't just get to impeach him because you hate him. And Clinton was not impeached for having sex, or lying. He was impeached for lying about the affair while under oath. There's a record of that.
Honest question, but please feel free to Digg me down if you'd just rather I go away! - KMye, on 10/12/2007, -18/+54*sigh* The following is observation is made without concern for whether or not Bush deserves to be impeached:
Possibility 1: Bush is successfully impeached > Cheney becomes President.
Possibility 2: Cheney is successfully impeached > Bush appoints Rumsfeld, Rove, maybe Wolfowitz to VP, making his future impeachment relatively pointless and giving a huge FU to congress
Possibility 3: Bush and Cheney are simultaneously impeached (assuming this is legal; I haven't looked into this) > The successor to the Presidency, if impeachment was successful, would be Pelosi, virtually guaranteeing, to many, many 9's that an essentially half Republican congress would never vote them out.
I'm a pragmatic idealist, and I think that putting the country through this just to prove a point polls show the majority of Americans already understand would just be a giant ***** waste of time and money. We have primaries coming up in about 6 months; getting involved in the upcoming race will be a much more constructive use of political passion making sure the next election is the most informed, honest election our country has ever had. - bightchee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42I keep my senators' phone numbers in my cell phone.
- NearlyHuman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+43Here are the numbers for every US senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Chris Dodd: 202-224-2823
John Kerry: 202-224-4543
Ted Kennedy: 202-224-2742 - Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -16/+36@missinglink
So you say "Clinton was not impeached for having sex, or lying. He was impeached for lying about the affair while under oath."
But Bush can get on TV look directly in the camera and lie to the American people but because its not "under oath" its all good? That's *****.
How can you imply the impeachment of Clinton was justified but not for Bush? Clinton "lied" about a blow job. Bush lied to a terrified public in order to drag us into an unnecessary war which has killed more Americans than the 9/11 attacks?
Please explain yourself. Or are you just a blind "Bushie"? - mrdeathgod, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34I set up a website to rotate a different Congressional contact every day. If we can get the digg community behind this like the HD-DVD code, wheels are going to be set in motion.
http://www.digg.com/politics/Here_s_the_new_Bush_Cheney_impeachment_phone_poll
http://www.makethemlisten.org - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35They have done NOTHING wrong? Wow, even the most disgustingly loyal republicans I know will admit to some wrongdoings. It must be difficult to shield yourself from reality. Pathetic indeed.
Bye. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Don't bother with the Senators yet.
We need to House to impeach them and than we can rally the Senate to convict.
Let's start with this guy:
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Judiciary_Committee_Chairman_wants_to_hear_your_opinion_on_impeachment - darthsabbath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If you're thinking of the same conservatives as me, I'm with you 100%. I keep hearing about these mythical "Goldwater" Republicans.... WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY TODAY? Where are the TRUE Conservatives that stand for fiscal responsibility, privacy, freedom, limited government, and leaving people the hell alone?
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” - Barry Goldwater - missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28@docboss
No, this is a Democratic Republic
The Constitution has no mechanism for a recall or a recall election. Impeachment is not for removing an unpopular President. And if it were a democracy, impeachment - voted on by 435 members of Congress and then decided by 100 Senators - would be about as undemocratic a way to remove a President that I can think of. Look at the recall in California for a betters sense of what a democratic recall would look like.
But don't let facts get in the way of your hatred! :) - IADTatami, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@shotline
I'm sorry, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since we invaded. It's not a lie. It's a fact.
We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. People are not being fed as well as they were before the war. Many don't have access to clean water or electricity.
Deaths due to disease skyrocketed after we destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. Child birth became a much more deadly endeavor for mothers and infants alike.
People are dying of malnutrition over there. Iraq's child malnutrition rate equals that of Burundi these days. That's sad.
It's not a lie. I'm sorry. It's not a lie. About 655,000 people died who probably would not have died had we not invaded Iraq.
I'm not going to call you a liar. You aren't ignorant, either... you had to have been aware of the report in order to call it a concatenation of lies.
You just don't have the courage to face the truth.
I will digg you down for calling qualified epidemiologists from Iraq and around the world liars, though. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@bightchee
Just make sure to use them. - Philonius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11>you rally around the bandwagon like lemons
Don't believe I've heard that expression before.
Yep, one thing about lemons, they always rally around the......wait, wtf? No they don't!
Way to mix your metaphors, Archie Bunker. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11How many times do we need to have the same debate. BE IT RESOLVED:
1. "High Crimes are whatever Congress says they are" -- Gerald Ford (look it up).
2. Clinton got impeached after a $40M fishing expedition. Yes, he lied. Yes, he was also acquitted in the Senate. The point is moot, unless you think fishing expeditions are a good idea.
3. Lying to Congress is a federal crime, whether or not it is under oath.
4. Impeachment will happen, but only after the evidence comes out -- because it will take 17+ Republicans in the Senate and they'll only do so after being forced by public opinion and the indisputable facts. Until then, keep the pressure up, but don't expect miracles. - TheBogie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If Pelosi had stones like Mike Gravel, she would have already handled this business.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12You should really be trying to convince Republicans. Even if they wanted Bush out, they'd acquit just to keep Pelosi from taking his place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Digg the post doesn't equate to actually taking action. This country's great about expressing opinion, but appears to sadly lack backbone at times.
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Reid's voice mail is full, but if you press 1 an aid will pick up and take your message. PLEASE talk to the aid and don't give up just because his inbox is full! Hoyer's aid picked up on the first ring and took my message.
- missinglink, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16@exhaust
No, not a "blind Bushy." Just someone who is curious about the details of these calls for impeachment. I think that the best evidence that there is not legal justification for impeachment is that he hasn't been impeached. A President this unpopular would be an easy mark if they could pull the trigger. I think the will is there, but I don't think Bush has given them the legal justification.
Did Bush lie? I'm not sure. He was wrong, but being wrong and lying are different things. Remember, the justifications that were used to go to war in Iraq were also espoused by Congressional Democrats, heads of state from around the world, a cannon of United Nations Resolutions and pretty much the entire international Intelligence community. Lying is a willful attempt to mislead, and I'm not sure that Bush crossed that line. He acted on the best information available; information that was supported by a consensus only outweighed by the unanimous support of Global Warming in the scientific community.
But even if he did lie, telling a lie to the American public is not illegal. It may be political suicide. It may have serious policy ramifications. But it's not illegal and it's not a justification for impeachment.
I'm not sure that the impeachment of Clinton was justified. Certainly it was politically motivated. But the difference is, Clinton took an oath, and then lied in a deposition that was on the record. There was concrete evidence of the perjury - and almost no one denied that. Perjury is, in matter of fact, a crime. It is illegal. It may be a hair-trigger for impeachment but it is a trigger nonetheless.
My point is, the standard for impeachment should be more than political disdain. There is a real standard that has to be met, and I'm still waiting to hear evidence that any standard can be forwarded to justify impeaching this President. - DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19My point was, he's not our king, he was elected (sorta) and if the people no longer want him to be president we don't have to just live with it.. Also those 435 members of the house and 100 members of the senate were elected so they represent the people. Which means, ideally, they should be voting in our interests.
- dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12putting the country through this? Are you kidding - this isn't about one man's indiscretions in the oval office with a female page! Thousands of Americans, and 100s of thousands of Iraqis have died senselessly, and under false pretense and Bush/Cheney and Co are guilty of real crimes: fraud, subversion, treason. With your logic, it would have been better to spare the embarrassment and damage to the economy and country if Enron executives had not been prosecuted. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney is exactly what this country needs to regain it's bearing, focus and standing in the world community. Let the Grand Jury convene!
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Impeachment is simply a formal "indictment" of crimes. It's not proof, it's not a trial, it's not removal from office, it's just the formal levying of charges against an elected official, nothing more, nothing less.
I personally believe the two should be removed from office. Let Pelosi have the house for a year. Not only would we have someone who may be able to fix this mess, but she'd have the golden opportunity to prove to America that if the right woman runs for president (Read: Not Hilary) she could do a good job.
I'm sick of our President and how he acts like the King of the world. The people need to remove their official, because he's a miserable failure. He ignores us and he ignores our government. I don't know if he remembers, but this country has a penchant for killing dictators. - Caruthers, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19@ebfoxbat
Since when does international law supersede the constitution? - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10It's good that both Democrat and Republican phone numbers are in that list. No reason to fill Just the Democrat's voice mail, right? May as well call everyone.
- Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@catalysis and everyone else saying there are no grounds....
What itsmekirby said!
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
Repeat that to yourself a few hundred times." - ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10So I guess what you're saying is that a long as we need something bad enough, it's ok to start a war over it.
This has to be the most well thought out, morally indefensible delusion I've ever read. At least if you had said we have to stop the spread of fascist extremist islam, you might have some moral footing.
It is NOT the role of government to engage in war to protect the profits of oil companies. Capitalism and competition are fine. Unregulated capitalism at the end of a rifle is fascism.
How do you sleep at night? - salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apparently mob rule and intimidation are how we should determine who our leaders are, instead of voting.
- salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Don't forget Pelosi is about to go cuddle with Chavez, who's in the middle of nationalizing every private enterprise in his country.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -23/+28@missinglink
He invaded, overthrew and occupied a foreign country without warrant. This is a violation of the Geneva Accord. He should be impeached, removed from power (they *are* different) and possibly brought up on war crimes charges. - keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Sorry for comment spam but heres the full bill text for impeaching cheny
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.333: - kerbechard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Keep in mind this kids:
No matter what side of this issue you fall on, Senators and Representatives listen to only ONE group of people: Their CONSTITUENTS. If you want to influence your representatives in the government on any issue, don't waste the time of people you can't vote for. They don't care what you have to say, and if you just leave voice mails says "I support the *insert topic*." then they will most liky be deleted by staffers.
The proper way to address an issues is to state your full name, what district or town you are from, and then say that you support or are against an issue. This method is more respectful of their office and the responsibilities it carries, and is more likely to get the attention that you as a voting member of society deserve. - WMD404, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6nastronomical.. I believe the word you're looking for is "lemmings"... How's that home-schooling working out for ya?
- tuxracer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@floorman56
"Don't believe me? wait until you see how far I'm dugg down by Medea matters digg army"
I'll digg you down for two reasons: First, what you're saying is ridiculous. Second, I'm sick of people putting some variation of "[Some inane comment here] If I'm dugg down that means I'm right!" and having people fall for it. - nelsonjs, on 10/12/2007, -25/+30Update: Reid's line is down now too!
Call Hoyer (# in link) and Obama: 202 224-2854 - mikeyeah, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@ KMYe
You couldn't be more wrong. People don't want Bush & Cheney impeached just to "prove a point" or anything partisan like that. They want them impeached for violating their oaths of office. It's not a "waste of time & money" to impeach them, it's what our Constitution demands. - itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@missinglink
D00ley mentioned this earlier, but it seems like he was ignored. High crimes and misdemeanours AREN'T ILLEGAL ACTIONS. They mean something completely different from the modern sense, because in the 18th century it didn't have a legal connotation. ""High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
You don't have to break to law to be impeached.
Repeat that to yourself a few hundred times.
You can be impeached for any reason at all. If the congress were to decide that it were a high crime, Bush could be impeached for being unpopular. - trimpton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Um, perhaps you should actually read what an Impeachment is, and if you read the news at all it wouldn't be too hard to set grounds for investigation.
- Monk22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4if weve been proven wrong why is bush still the prez? oh wait cause we havent
- KMye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9As an initial disclaimer: I hate both parties, and think that corruption is the no. 1 problem facing our country in a political sense, and that said corruption served to we, the people, in droves by whichever party happens to be in power.
That said, now that we have a congress in control by a party that will check the executive branch's power, wouldn't its efforts better spent on issues that will have a real effect on our country and the world, now and in the future?
I'd much rather see all the restrictions on stem cell research destroyed than 6 months of political posturing. - sideffects, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Alright, Bush did nothing to get impeached, I don't know if any of you smart people out there know this, but you have to do something illegal! By the way...Bush is NOT killing American soldiers, that's Congress, if we fought the war Bush's way, we'd be out of there and everyone would be back home by now.
- mushkadad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9 Please Understand that I mean no offense, but the fundamental flaw in your reasoning (to just do nothing and let the upcoming primaries say what needs to be said, is that in our silence, in our inaction, by simply doing absolutely nothing in response to the actions of this administration....we send a message that clearly says to any future leader of this country that we as a nation will blindly allow the deconstruction of our nations constitution, the defamation of our nations honorable reputation, the fleecing of our national treasury, as well as the systematic dissolving of our individual rights because we as a society are unwilling or unable to put aside our petty, partisan, irrational differences and do what must be done in the face of even the most blatant of criminal activities perpetrated by a president. To send that message to any future leader, not to mention to the watching eyes of the world in which we must live, would be a nail in the coffin of The United States Of America as we know it and as it was always meant to be.
You say it would be too costly to impeach, but I ask you to consider the cost of allowing Bush to continue as president full term. The cumulative cost of the war in Iraq alone will be paid for, not only by those of us who allowed it to continue, but will be this nations financial legacy for generations to come.
I, like many people, have sat quietly by and watched as this President flaunted his criminal actions right in plain view. For me it's been like a dream where I try and try to run from or towards something unseen and yet the harder I try, the less my legs move. This thing that is happening now finally, this movement....is hope...and in many way it's redemption...not only for me personally but for our nation as a whole. Because I, for the very first time, see a future that we can make happen. A future where we do come together as one and put a stop to this, and maybe, just maybe prove something to ourselves and those former allies around the world who have given up on this nation, that the heart and soul of America still beats.
But, if that is just too mushy for you to take seriously then consider this. What if tomorrow, or next week, or a month from now...our worst fears...the very thing our soldiers are dieing in Iraq every day to prevent....happens. Multiple coordinated attacks are carried out within this country by "sleeper cells" who have been here all along. (like that could ever happen right?) What if they managed to pull something off because our focus was misplaced overseas. With our military stretched and deployed elsewhere, we would have virtually no one left here to call into action. - JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I keep your mom's phone number in my cell phone.
- antivirus88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Whether you hate Bush or not, how could you be so for this? You know that 2/3 of congress will not vote to have him removed, and that all this will do is waste more government funds.
- skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Buried as duplicate, since we see this SAME article EVERY DAY on digg in one form or another. It would be sad if it weren't so funny.
I like to read the comments to see if anyone lists a charge to bring against Bush or Cheney as grounds for impeachment, but no one ever does. Every now and then you get "war crimes" or "lying" something equally vague, but you never get a precise charge. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress can't come up with a charge either, and that's why NONE of this will ever get traction? - feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11This Administration is ruining our country - they have handed the reins over to big corporations and Conservatives. we need a middle class back! we need our indiviual rights back!
- joshtj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Important things like letting a withdrawel timetable get veto'd? Please.
- itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@catalysis
http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm
In addition, from the wiki article: "This charge occurs only in cases of parliamentary impeachment and is unrelated to any offence in criminal law."
Impeachment is a political process and not a judicial one. The problem is that the 18th century language of high crimes and misdemeanors has new connotations in modern language. When it was written, high crimes meant offenses against the country, while mis-demeanors meant bad behavior, meaning corruption or neglect of duty. The president may be impeached for corruption even if he hasn't broken any laws, because corruption, for example, is an 18th century misdemeanor - bad behavior. - DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18@missinglink
This is a democracy, we voted him into office. If we the people no longer want him in office than we have every right to remove him. It doesn't matter if he never lied or commited any crime. Even if he was doing his gosh darn best but just ***** every thing up (war, economy, health care) and we didn't like him it is our duty to get rid of him. - NearlyHuman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, time to clear something up. Impeachment does not mean that the president/vice president gets kicked out of office. Impeachment is a hearing and a symbolic act.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 329 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is