What is Digg?376 Comments
- willyummy69, on 11/09/2007, -11/+394good luck with that. part of me hopes this will work...part of me knows it won't.
- moskaudancer, on 11/07/2007, -13/+156I believe it's 2/3 of the total; judging by Congress's actions since January, there's not a chance in hell this is gonna work.
/fumes at Democratic majority's pussyhood - Hoxie, on 11/08/2007, -6/+124Execute order 66...erm... 333.
- commernie, on 11/07/2007, -1/+106I'm impressed with Kucinich for doing this. Sadly, it's not going to pass. How can we expect politicians to do what the people want if we never hold them accountable for anything? Both parties have been doing what they want for so long now, and people are still going out there to vote for them. Sad, sad, sad...
- SeethisPass, on 11/09/2007, -13/+104While you are donating to the Ron Paul campaign today and early Tuesday you would be doing an honor for your country to also chip in a donation for the only other candidate with guts and integrity, Dennis Kucinich.
- khpmli, on 11/07/2007, -7/+95so, how many votes is needed for impeachment?
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -4/+92Dont be surprised if Kucinich has an unfortunate accident next week.
- AnotherBrian, on 11/09/2007, -2/+74About ***** time.
- jhails, on 11/09/2007, -3/+71I'm guessing Dick is busy issuing Kucinich an invitation to go hunting.
- thebellmaster1x, on 11/09/2007, -9/+70You see? THIS is why I'm voting for Kucinich. It's called BALLS, people.
- LopsidedZebra, on 11/07/2007, -1/+56Is it really only 54 percent? Wow...thats ***** sad...
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -5/+58Pelosi and company have been assiduously working to keep this movement to impeach off of the floor to avoid having to vote against it. How will Nancy and the rest of the political nobility explain their votes to protect Dick Cheney?
- Monarch818, on 11/09/2007, -1/+52Can't impeach Bush first! That would make Cheney President. Kucinich is a genius, if Cheney is ousted, everyone will happily jump at the chance to impeach Dubya!
- Waiting2awake, on 11/08/2007, -7/+54Best of luck... but I fear this is like asking the fox what happened in the henhouse last night....
- LeeSoong, on 11/07/2007, -4/+49RESOLUTION 333 ?!?
Damn, they know they'll have to pass it TWICE to try and make it work against the Dark Lord ! (written in the blood of a Virgin with a Pegasus feather under a full moon. )
Martial Law Emergency Powers Act Activating in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... - Diggnoramus, on 11/07/2007, -4/+48Win or lose, or even if this is just a symbolic gesture, at least someone f***ing did SOMETHING, and that's what's important. If it fails, at least it won't be just idle speculation anymore. The results can be studied, corrections can made, and another approach can be tried. I'm just tired of the whiney "oh, it's useless, so just bend over" attitude. I'm actually leaning toward Ron Paul right now, but THANK YOU Dennis Kucinich.
- insensible, on 11/09/2007, -9/+51I think it should work ..... best of luck !!
- flickboy, on 11/07/2007, -1/+39Section 2. 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 offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
- Brianguy2000, on 11/06/2007, -4/+41Not sure how it works but if he's convicted of crimes then can't Bush pardon him?
- flickboy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+33"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article I, sec. 2. No special number specified = simple majority.
"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." Article I, sec. 3. - Philodox, on 11/06/2007, -3/+35Sorry to bring math into this, but in order to get a 2/3 majority the dems would need some republicans to also favour impeachment. Now you're right that 100% of the dems won't vote in favour of this but keep in mind this needs support from both parties to go through.
- MrBogard, on 11/09/2007, -1/+32I agree that the chances of this going anywhere are very slim, but I think that it's also something that must be done simply for the sake of democracy and for the sake of integrity. Kudos to Kucinich for being one of the few Democrats with the balls to take action. I've seen people indicate that he's only doing this because, "he has nothing to lose," but the truth is -- we're all losing right now.
I'm not sure I understand why this is limited to Cheney, but it's a start. - Lenny, on 11/08/2007, -0/+31Site's slow. Here's all it says:
House Resolution 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors will be brought to the House floor by Congressman Dennis Kucinich as a privilege vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6th. American Research Group Poll says 54 percent of Americans favor the impeachment of Cheney and the National Lawyer’s Guild passed a Resolution for Impeachment on Friday, Nov. 2nd, giving further support for the impeachment proceedings. - LeeSoong, on 11/09/2007, -8/+37Senator Kucinich, We find your lack of faith, disturbing.
- batshitcrazy, on 11/09/2007, -6/+34the closer cheney comes to being impeached, the closer we get to the false flag attack that will bring down martial law on us
- bugsy187, on 11/06/2007, -3/+30I'm glad Kucinich has the integrity to bring this vote to the floor. Cheney is a criminal and should be held accountable. I'm curious who'll vote honestly in the house.
- mikemil828, on 11/06/2007, -0/+27Even if all the democrats vote for it, it still won't be enough if all republicans vote against it.
- Damian91, on 11/09/2007, -2/+28Cheney has already done his dirty work/made his dirty money. Should've been done years ago.
- moskaudancer, on 11/06/2007, -4/+27He doesn't even have to be convicted; he can be preemptively pardoned for whatever he'd be accused/indicted of. That's what happened with Nixon.
- boiboi, on 11/08/2007, -1/+24Then I will marry his 28 year old wife.
- atomicrobot, on 11/07/2007, -7/+29The problem with our democracy is that the average American is a total idiot.
- rz8472, on 11/06/2007, -2/+23This is the right way to go; impeach everyone who's below George W. Bush right now and then prosecute him when he's out of office.
But the Republicans are likely to stonewall this, and I doubt even most of the democrats would support despite overwhelming public sentiment. - dicerandom, on 11/09/2007, -7/+28When do we get to impeach and/or put on trial Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Gonzales, and the rest of the crew?
- bzishi, on 11/06/2007, -4/+24Wrong, it is simply a majority vote in the House. Removal from office requires the Senate to vote by 2/3rds. Impeachment just means that he is brought up on charges with the Senate being the jury.
I hope the Democrats time an impeachment vote on Bush a little better. Impeachment of the President would suspend his ability to pardon. If they impeached Bush about 1 year from now the proceedings would never have enough time to get to a vote in the Senate before he left office. BUT--and this is the important point--he would not be able to pardon all of the criminals who have assisted him on Jan 19th, 2009. All that would be required is that the same Democratic controlled House today thinks clearly and grows some balls and then impeaches Bush quickly after the 2008 Presidential Election. The smart thing to do would be to not bring up all of the potential charges in one vote but stagger them to ensure that the Senate does not have time to vote on them all. They also have to do it suddenly so that Bush won't use his pardon immediately before the vote. - Hollic, on 11/06/2007, -1/+19You know, even if this doesn't pass, I'm at least hoping for a censure. I mean come on, there'd be SOME consolation in that. It's like a letter, telling them how ashamed we are of them, even though it does nothing. Public opinion really can't get much worse so at least it's another page in the history book against them.
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -1/+19I hope this passes, kinda excited to see what it looks like in the news tomorrow.
- nlevy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+16I don't think an impeachment can be nullified like an indictment.
- Mageant, on 11/09/2007, -2/+17>I'm not sure I understand why this is limited to Cheney, but it's a start.
If you impeach Bush then Cheney becomes President. Besides, Cheney is even more unpopular than Bush. So a congressman would be risking less if he voted against Cheney. - AshamedAmerican, on 11/09/2007, -9/+24The only appropriate "impeachment" Cheney deserves is the kind with a large man in a black hood.
Hey maybe Barry Bonds' steroid-induced swing can actually be used for a noble cause.... - LBobRife, on 11/06/2007, -2/+17Still, it's a worthwhile symbolic gesture.
- MrCobaltBlue, on 11/06/2007, -1/+16At least someone in the democratic party has a pair, even if it is Dennis Kucinich...
- chicoer2001, on 11/09/2007, -6/+20How will Ron Paul vote?
- AdamGeld, on 11/06/2007, -5/+19Impeachment is such a trivial thing to do to such a disgusting bastard. He deserves much worse then the loss of office.
- twister17e, on 11/09/2007, -3/+16That's the Bush's crew speaking in case you didn't get that memo...
- AdamGeld, on 11/07/2007, -2/+15333... Does that make him just half the devil? Where's the rest? Ohhhhhhh... BUSH!
- savagesteve13, on 11/09/2007, -3/+16That pretty much explains it all. Cheney is actually president! Bush is of no consequence to anyone since he's just a bumbling fool controlled by others.
- LimeParrot, on 11/09/2007, -6/+18Next in line: Bush.
- borninda818, on 11/07/2007, -4/+16Only to Steve Jobs.
- Terr01, on 11/06/2007, -1/+13The political symbolism and legal effect is important. It would be a disservice to our our nation and our descendants to leave the Bush administration as a precedent for what a constitution-ripping President can get away with.
- flickboy, on 11/06/2007, -0/+11That's not what happened. Nixon was about to be impeached -- he never actually let it get that far, because he resigned. See my comment below for why he did that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 377 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is