Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Make Them stand up on the floor and DEFEND Dick Cheney.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Saboburns Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:15 PM
Original message
Make Them stand up on the floor and DEFEND Dick Cheney.
Mwthinks that would be a GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD thing.

Know what I mean???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's going back to the JC
no debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. You're pretty confident Conyers will continue to stonewall it...
why is that?

Do you not think anything's changed much in the last six months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
25. That saddens me.
Oh, well. I'm sure the media would find a way not to cover it. Is there a blonde in jeopardy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. They don't have to defend Cheney.
They just have to defend 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Where's the hard evidence?
There's innuendo galore, but there's no smoking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Do you honestly believe that with a full scale investigation allowed that the smoking
gun would not then be revealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. what full scale investigation?
You can't have an investigation without evidence.
You see all the 5 million White House emails?
You see all the records of visits to the office of the VP.
Its been vaporized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. And you don't believe that if an investigation was demanded and begun that
the evidence would have to be shown or not showing it would be proof that wrong doing had occurred?

In a court of law, simply saying your dog ate what should be seen as evidence is not good enough to a real judge when finding a reason why you can't produce it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. Isn't it the point of an investigation to gather evidence?
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 10:10 PM by dflprincess
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Innuendo?
man they have you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You really don't understand the difference between
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 06:03 PM by NYCALIZ
allowable evidence, and someone saying that someone else said that so and so suggested indirectly ("not in so many words") to position an analysis one way?

I'm not the one that's been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I disagree.
Although his emails are missing, there is a paper trail of reports that refutes every BS excuse he testified to for going to war with Iraq. Probably a few other issues as well, but hey, how much do you need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. But, there no proof of intention
there's proof of "we screwed up".
"He was wrong" is not an impeachable offense.
"He defrauded" is an impeachable offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I would say a real judge would see those flimsy excuses by omg our government
who has a major responsibility to ensure such emails are accounted for would more than likely laugh in their faces.

The only trouble I see here is getting a real judge, one who cares about ensuring the truth become known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Actually I think you are wrong. I think Joe Wilson would be glad to talk.
I think the CIA declared 10 days ago, that they warned the gov't not to use curveball's information. on and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. "He was wrong" can be an impeachable offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buns_of_Fire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Why not? If you can convince the Senate to go along, that is.
So what if there's no "smoking gun" (although in this case I think there are plenty of them!)? So what if the evidence presented said he'd eaten 12 babies when he'd really only eaten 9? If the Senate (a tough audience, if there ever was one) can be convinced to say "You're fired," that's all there is to it.

Who's he gonna appeal to?

I don't think a lot of the standard rules within the legal system strictly apply here, since impeachment doesn't seem to be a legal proceeding as we usually think of one. It seems more like a Board of Directors meeting to decide whether or not to 86 the CEO (or the COO, in DICK's case). And, like most corporations, the "Board" (that would be Congress) doesn't really give a rat's behind what the small "stockholders" (that would be you and me) think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. Then I guess all the constitutional lawyers and scholars
that have called for articles of impeachment and have offered up their own need to come to you for instruction on the issue of impeachment inquiry and evidence. I'll give them a call and let them know they are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. The JC that just gave the nod to Mukasy?
Gosh...why am I not hopeful of a positive outcome?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Because you're a party pooper.
This is all positive, regardless of the outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That was Senate Judiciary -- DK's res goes to House
with John Conyers as chair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yeah, Conyers who just said he thought it was a distraction from "important" work
Be still my heart.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Was that a recent Conyers quote?
I know C-Span was spewing a quote he'd given Faux Noize back about a year ago ... Is this something he said today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shrek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No, the other one.
Conyers chairs the committee in the House.

It was the Senate committee that approved Mukasey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. well that was the SENATE judiciary committee. This
resolution goes to the Conyer's led House judiciary committee. But you're right. They are both hopless--especially considering this resolution has already been in that committee for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Unfortunately for us...
a whole lot of (D)'s would be doing the defending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. I'm SOOOO confused!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
20. Holy fuck -- it is the voice of reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
voice of reason Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. no . . .
I am the voice of reason
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Oh, sorry.
Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 06:43 PM by The Stranger
My mistake. Is there a poster here on DU by any chance named "Holy Fuck"? It was apparently addressed to him or her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yes. Make them stand up and defend him.
That would be a good new direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saboburns Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
29. Mebbe you guys didn't hear about this one, but
A guy by the name of Bill Clinton was semi impeached because he shot a wad of semen on a Blue Dress worn by a chubby girl named Monica.

I know it's a bit of a stretch, but, I'm kinda guessin we can come up with something here.

Anybody??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Good one!
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saboburns Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Somebody help me out here.
I keep hearing how dumb/stupid/punked the Democrats looked today.

All because Dennis Kucinich brought up a Resolution to impeach Dick Cheney.

So tell me then.

If impeachment of Cheney were to actually happen, How would it start???

Apparently, there's some other way I have as yet to hear about.

Prayer mebbe??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
32. when the approval ratings for DICK fall into the negative #'s
what will they be holding?


bet it won't be his coattails.
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC