View Story | 33 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
that a failure to affirm Impeachment in the Senate would somehow offer Bush cover.
There are no legal or historical or Constitutional basis (unless you are thinking of the double jepardy clause, which only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not at all to the Executive Branch and Impeachment).
On the contrary, at the very least, an attempt to Impeach will at least leave the history books with some concrete evidence that the entire US government, including the Congress, wasn't up to their necks in secretive, suspect activities. That at least some of those in the halls of power were still concerned with the concept of equal justice and that no man, and especially not the president, is above the law.
Si, se puede cambiar~~Yes, we can change~~Obama '08
by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:29:47 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
this Legislature to get them improved healthcare, do something to resolve Iraq short of an immediate pullout, get the minimum wage act fully passed, etc. All the things we promised during the election in 2006.
If this Congress and Senate get bogged down in Impeachment and no promised legislation gets passed, the Dems would be kickout rather than stengthening their positions.
Remember, they would have to impeach both Bush and Chaney. Would the public stand for the instablility of having both the Pres and VP expelled at the same time with 2 unelected people replacing them?
BTW, why are isn't the leadership as well as every Dem member charging the Repubs with obstructionism the way they do when we're in the minority. They should do it every time they get in front of a mike!
It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
by auapplemac on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:44:58 PM PDT
the 110th Congress took up the gavel and started "The People's business" of 2007?
What legislation that the Democrats have offered up has been signed into law by President Bush?
Do we have Universal Healthcare, or just better than 2006 healthcare? Did the Iraqi Occupation end, and I just missed the news report?
There is no 'getting bogged down with Impeachment', this Democratic Majority is a majority of one, and Cheney decided all tie votes. The 110th Congress has not had a hope in hell of accomplishing ANYTHING since they took office. The Speaker, and anyone who can count to 100 have known this since January 1 of this year.
Not to mention that even when they pass legislation in the House and Senate, they need Bush to sign it, and I believe that the single bill that was passed, he vetoed.
Now, please tell me again how impeachment would stop this congress from doing the work of the people?
by Angie in WA State on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:52:24 PM PDT
let the public know loudly and often that they need to vote in more D's in order to do the people's business.
I watch a great deal of TV news and commentary, but have never heard one Dem say the the R's are preventing the passage of important legislation. If the Pres vetos that at least makes headlines, but if the R's prevent the bills from passing, it hardly makes a ripple.
Can't depend on the media, must keep pounding away at that message. Need more Dems, need more Dems. Give us an veto proof majority!
by auapplemac on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 12:27:21 AM PDT
Yes, if Pelosi strong-armed the House, there would be an official record. There would also be an official Senate record of failure to convict. Largely because the American public is so f***ing stupid that they think less of this Dem Congress than they do of Bush. Or Cheney.
I abhor this administration. I frankly would like to see Pelosi do the impeachment drill for the emotional satisfaction. But after that? Then what? The thrill of failure in the Senate?
The history books have, and will have, a world of misdeeds upon which to judge this administration.
Small varmints, if you will.
by 2lucky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:49:46 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 33 comments