Consequences...? (Are there any?)

Certain things I don't understand:

1) Why haven't the Democrats in the House of Representatives begun doing something to initiate impeachment proceedings on grounds of treason regarding national security -- 9/11, spies, weapons of missing destruction, etc.? I remember when the Clinton stuff was going on, and it was obvious it wasn't really going to go anywhere, but the scum suckers did it anyway. Where are the Democrats? Can't they put it up for a vote or something? If it gets rejected along party lines, it would at least make me feel better about them.

2) Why isn't Bob Novak in jail already? Why is he still on television and making money writing?

3) Can we sue Faux News or Limbaugh or have licenses pulled or do something when they deliberately mislead people? What standards of "journalistic integrity" are required, and what happens when they are ignored?

I know there are a whole lot of Democrats out there who have become lawyers. Can someone take a few minutes to explain these things to me? Thank you.

In order to start the proceedings, you gotta have the votes to bring it up and into the Judiciary Committee. Dems don't have the votes.

Obviously it won't get through, but has anyone even TRIED? nt

1) Republicans control Congress. George W. Bush could rape and then murder a little boy on live television and they still wouldn't impeach.

2) HA! Like John Ashcoft is ever going to lift a finger on that one!

3) Private companies on cable television and radio. Nope, it's not actionable in a civil court. Civilly, they could report the world is flat day in and day out and there is not thing one we could do. Advertisers have a bit more leeway, though.

I asked about #1 -- have they even tried?

And for #2 -- Is Ashcroft the only one who can do it? What about a State Attorney General?

#3 -- This is just nuts. Both sides are being driven nuts by this; we don't know WHO to believe, so we all do our best to let "common sense" dictate and pray Heaven we have enough information to make sense of what we're seeing. Maybe a nuisance suit or seven thousand???

1) Republicans control Congress, ergo, they control the agenda. Waxman drew up articles of impeachment but they have not and cannot go anywhere so long as Republicans control the agenda. Short answer, nobody has tried because they aren't even allowed to do that by the Republicans in control.

2) State attorneys have no jurisdiction over a federal felony action. The FBI is the governing authority for such an investigation at the behest of the Justice Deprtment, ergo, Ashcroft. He ain't doin' shit about this one.

3) That's life in a nation where Corporations are granted the rights and priveleges of super citizens by Supreme Court precedent.

We have to get these people OUT OF OFFICE NOW. :) Ida

It is sometimes hard to believe how F***ed things are. But it is true.

tells you all you need to know -

http://www.netlobby.com/hcwco.htm

"Traditionally, the Speaker has significant influence over the House Rules Committee. This powerful committee acts as a 'traffic cop.' It determines which bills that have been reported out of other committees will actually come to the House floor for a vote and specifies the rules for debate on those bills."

Current Speaker: Dennis Hastert
Current Rules Committee Chairman: David Dreier (previously Trent Lott, I believe)

ETA: frustrating, innit?

As for 1), a few republicans would speak out and say things like: "I think that the President should speak out against people raping, etc, etc ... ON TV". (As in, if you have to do it, please don't rub in our faces -- pretty please.)

These "protestors" will, of course, vote with the "Party", which, I understand is going to be renamed the "National American Salvation and feeble minded Idiots" Party, after this "election".

where not one elected official has any intention of assuming responsibility for any of their actions.
It is almost as if they want the same rights and privileges that they have handed out to all their corporate pals.
After all it is the corporate money that puts them in office.

in Florida violated the law by lying, and the jury ruled in favor of the man and woman who are reporters who refused to go along with Fox's lies and were fired for it.

On appeal, a judge ruled that it's legal for even Fox broadcast news (which is theoretically more regulated than cable) to lie.

The reporters lost the case based on that freedom-to-lie appeal ruling.

The lawsuit is discussed in the documentary, "The Corporation."

It involved bovine growth hormone and milk.