| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
 Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: Pelosi takes impeachment 'off the table' |
 |
|
San Fran Nan reportedly has announced that she will not allow impeachment hearings to take place should Dems take over the House in the next congress.
She could be, 1) lying or, 2) getting vibes that impeachment talk is beginning to awaken the Republican base - a fearsome prospect for Dems.
The source was a brief mention on Brit Hume's show this afternoon. Plus, "Salon" has an article on it but I won't register there to read it. Some lib readers' responses are carried Here. They are not happy campers.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My vote: 1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | My vote: 1) |
I tend to agree. If the Dems do take the House (God forbid) all bets are off and she will unleash Conyers in a blink of her poorly contact-lensed eye.
Let's say the worst happens and impeachment proceedings start in the House Judiciary Committee. It's easy to lie back and take comfort in our knowledge that Bush has committed no high crimes or misdemeanors. That would not make any difference. The committee need only vote articles out regardless of legal opinion just because they can.
With Clinton, the fact that he lied before a federal prosecutor was common knowledge and, in fact, he did commit a high crime despite the Dem argument that it was only about sex. The Dems would charge Bush with wiretapping of "the American People", in their minds a high crime even if it isn't. The Republicans would cite all the settled law on the subject showing that no crime was committed, but the Dems would just vote that it was. Done. No appeal. If the full House concurs, Bush gets at least an asterisk.
If the Dems take the Senate, a trial would take place. As far as I can tell, the Chief Justice, presiding over the trial, has no say as to the legitimacy of the charges. He just sits there and reads stuff that the parliamentarian hands him. Voting en bloc, as the Dems always do, the President could be fired. Democrat non-justice would have been served.
This may be far-fetched but nonetheless is a haunting prospect and all the stops must be pulled to deny a Democrat takeover of the House this November.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
agree ...#1
she is just trying not to spook any moderates right now ,that might vote Dem in the elections
Conyers hasn't backed off
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | | If the Dems take the Senate, a trial would take place. |
If my memory serves me correctly, once an article(s) of impeachment is voted out of the house, a trial WILL take place regardless of Senate composition...no?
Frankly, this impeachment talk is just too hypothetical at this point for me to even dwell on it. There's a relative political eternity to pass through before Nov '06 and I'm not nearly as resigned to concession of the house as many appear to be...and, FWIW, I vote for BOTH.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1991932
Lance Corporal
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 381
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't Dick Cheney by President if "they" get rid of Dubya??
Lock & load 
_________________
Former "War Criminal" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: | | If my memory serves me correctly, once an article(s) of impeachment is voted out of the house, a trial WILL take place regardless of Senate composition...no? |
Some things I've read use the word "may". Of course, if Dems control the Senate, they "will". In any case, since conviction takes two-thirds of senators present, a conviction is highly unlikely with a Senate closely balanced.
The thing that really gets to me is the disregard for settled law that is possible and probable in any present-day impeachment process. Reading the deliberations of the Founders over the issue of impeachment, it's pretty obvious that they naively believed that, of course, laws applicable to the charges would be respected. Not so in today's corrosive climate.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DLI78
PO3
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Wouldn't Dick Cheney by President if "they" get rid of Dubya??
|
um, yes, and then Nancy Pelosi is ONE HEARTBEAT away from the presidency. Can you imagine her as president?
I think it is WAAAAAAAYYYY past time we had a constitutional amendment that a sitting president must have a mesurable IQ higher than the average walnut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least that would exclude Dear-in-the-headlights Nancy and Boxer (Moonbat, CA)
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DLI78
PO3
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
um, make that Deer-in-the-headlights.
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
If ya'll will notice, Pelosi gets that 'deer in the headlights'.....'eyes glazed over' look every time she is telling a lie. Which is almost all the time her gums are flapping.
Somebody sure needs to stuff a dirty sock in her mouth and pop a piece of duct tape over it.
That is one evil woman right there.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nancy's Deer in the Headlights appearence is a function of poor surgery. I take heart that after she told Russert that Bush is a liar, Cheny is a criminal, and the Republican Congressional leadership is corrupt that the Democrats seek 'civil discourse'.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"
-Wlm Shakespeare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1991932
Lance Corporal
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 381
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are the laws regarding Presidential succession? Could another vice president be selected if the current one ascends to the Presidency?
Of course, all of this speculation is nonsense. The Democrats' intention is to use the issue for political fodder for 2008, not actually get rid of the sitting President. George Bush has committed no crimes.
And call me sexist, but "dear in the headlights" works just fine for me 
_________________
Former "War Criminal" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1991932 wrote: | What are the laws regarding Presidential succession? Could another vice president be selected if the current one ascends to the Presidency?
Of course, all of this speculation is nonsense. The Democrats' intention is to use the issue for political fodder for 2008, not actually get rid of the sitting President. George Bush has committed no crimes.
And call me sexist, but "dear in the headlights" works just fine for me |
Under the terms of the 25th Amendment.
In the death or removal of a President, the VP becomes the president and can then appoint a new VP to take his place. Anytime there is a VP vacancy the President can appoint a new one. When Agnew stepped down Nixon appointed Ford, Nixon the stepped down and Gerry became president.
If something, God forbid, were to happen to GWB then Cheney would be president. He would then be within his rights to appoint Ollie North or Donald Rumsfeld as VP. How do you think the Liberals would react then?
The only shot Nancy has would be the simultaneous demise of the Pres and VP. Not likely!!!
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LimaCharlie
PO2
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My advice to Dick Cheney in the extremely unlikely event George Bush is impeached is to appoint Ann Coulter Vice President. Even the Democrats would protect him from any chance of harm.
Condi Rice/Ann Coulter - 2008
_________________
I was going to become an anarchist, but they had too many rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1991932 wrote: | | ....George Bush has committed no crimes. |
This is true, but in the feeding frenzy surrounding an impeachment action, the laws mean nothing and there are no appeals. In Clinton, it was clearly obvious that he lied under oath. But in the Senate voting, the Dems voted 100% 'nay' on all four Articles. The Republicans voted variously on the Articles, showing at least some regard for the weight of evidence against Clinton. The outcome was certain due to the two-thirds rule but any semblance of serving justice played no role.
I believe the Democrats would try impeachment, even with no hope of conviction or removal, just for the theater of the whole thing and utterly destroying what remains of Bush's second term while the world watches. They are that depraved.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
