Anyone beginning to see why impeaching Bush would have hurt more than helped now?

Take note of the people who are defending the thug Ashley Todd on this board because they feel sorry for her.

Same thing would have happened with Bush if the Dems would have moved to impeach him. We need to take into consideration that there are a lot of Dancing With The Stars type imbeciles out there and plan accordingly.

Ignorant people (even Dems) with short memories would have begun feeling sorry for Bush in no time too if it looked like the Dems were picking on him. Before we would have known it his over all approval ratings would have been in the 60-70 percent range.

He would be out doing rallies for McCain right now.

Don

:rofl:

NT!

And there is no way for you to disprove it any more than I can prove it without it actually happening.

Is there?

Don

NT!

The sticky part was the possibility of a President Richard Cheney.

will be impeached after the election and before the inauguration.

Then the people are still willfully stupid and more dumbed down than they were 8 years ago , the later I do believe to be true as well as how easy people forget just two weeks ago.

Then we are in real trouble still. I would hope if impeachment happened we would not be in such a mess that was made even worse in the last two years.

You can count me out everfeeling sorry for this admin.

Right after Jan 20..

n/t

I'm not an enabling coward, thanks.

I've had my fill of dealing with Watergate/Iran-Contra retreads, thanksmuch. Not looking forward to Dubya's crew reprising their act 8 years from now.

Few listen, sadly.

Jumping up and down spouting platitudes doesn't quite do it.

Don

:rofl:

Did you even consider proofreading that idea before you chucked it into the world?

Are you scared?

:hi:

Don

The judiciary also hasn't had a problem with the people who tried. Besides . . .
Who would've had physical access to Bush or Cheney?
The way to go was to have Pelosi in our corner and absolutely to pursue impeachment of both Cheney and Bush, Kucinich style.
Pelosi was the one who was scared. :hi:

Why? We still don't know for sure why but someday we definitely will.

What I can tell you for sure is that THIS is the real reason that this congress has such low approval ratings. The public absolutely WANTED us to pursue action against the crimes of this administration and Pelosi's refusal to do so (or reverse much if any of the other damage done) is the VERY reason why people are angry.
Pelosi will lose her spot but there will be significantly more dems in congress than now. They want us to use our power for exactly these kinds of actions. Reversing the damage and stopping the criminals who have perpetrated the damage.
We all know this, lets not pretend or succumb to the propaganda.

I think you are wrong, wrong and wrong

Letting somebody serve out his full term is not holding him accountable. Not only has he violated the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, not impeaching him has set a terrible and permanent precedent.

Blowjob = Crime worthy of impeachment

Violating the oath of office, destroying the constitution, committing torture, bombing innocent people, and violating the Geneva Convention = ??? Let them serve out their terms?

Nope. I will never agree to that.

Because we never had the votes to remove him. Only to impeach him.

See the difference?

Don

NT!

They are your enemy.

Don

1) Just as Dems crossed the aisle to vote for impeachment in the Clinton case, some Republicans could have crossed the aisle in the Senate to vote for conviction once the facts had been adduced. Imagine the shame of having his crimes outed and voting not to convict.

2) Sometimes the threat of impeachment/conviction is enough to get you out of office (see, e.g., NIXON),

3) Besides, if you actually read my post, you see that the main concern is about the precedent, so the precedent we have set by NOT even trying to impeach has done permanent damage to our constitution, regardless of whether or not he or Cheney were removed from office.

Edited for typo.

:eyes:

The weakness of your statement rests in that it is not able to be proven

Back to remedial civics class you go.

some cross over Republicans. The House MAYBE could pull it off but it is doubtful. The issue is that we probably didn't even have our votes to bring the articles much less enough to actually convict.
The only difference would be a handful of safer Republican seats and probably Bachman's dream coming true in retaliation. At best they'd still be in their anyway fighting and obstructing their way out the door.

People need to stop pretending we're in the early 70's or that the system works. Nixon would be so reasonable compared to the rank and file Republicans of today that he'd probably be a Democrat and there is no sarcasm intended. Impeachment wasn't going to happen, especially since Cheney had to go down too. The Republicans would obstruct to the end of time rather than give the White House to Pelosi and we all know that.
Lets just focus on getting the criminal regime out by the means we have now, repairing the damage done, and maybe putting this crime syndicate on trial. If there are end term pardons then turn them over to the World.

But I think a more important point is, impeachment doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I would far rather see him brought up on charges after he is out of office, and thrown in jail.

Which doesn't necessarily have to come in the form of impeachment.

What legal measures are available, anyway, when it's an ex-president you're charging?

They're going to have a high degree of immunity for exercising discretion while carrying out official business. Sad but true.

I'm willing to bet it was a Republican. Probably during the robber baron/trust era.

and is probably derived from the old concept of "sovereign immunity," in which the government itself is immune from suit. So, today, most people who act as an arm of government will have what is know as "qualified immunity." Plaintiffs have to get past that hurdle of "qualified immunity" even to be able to present their case to the court. In determining whether the defendant (usually it is police office or prison guard or warden, etc.) has qualified immunity, the judge will look at what type of act was taken, how much discretion was involved, whether the action was so far out of the bounds of reasonable judgment so as to put the defendant outside of the protections of qualified immunity, etc. It is sort of a nebulous standard.

Beyond "qualified immunity," there are also instances of absolute immunity for both public and private entities, which as you suggest, may be written into law; they may also be written by the courts (so, for example, when the Supreme Court recently said that individuals cannot sue manufacturers of defective medical devices because the fact of FDA approval confers immunity on them). It was a completely bogus pro-business decision. But that is another rant. :rant:

my party
etc
...

nobody would feel sorry for bush, especially if some of the crimes came to light. his approval will bottom when the facts are out.

ignorant? no, come down to earth with us please.

we do need the tv news to report facts and not distraction, i'll give you that for sure.

not hurt. You're basing your conclusions on nothing and wishful thinking. Look at history and human nature and you'll come up with a different conclusion.

At least, I'd like to think so...but who fucking really knows any more if there *ARE* any more laws?