Republicans Vote to Impeach Cheney

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pjdude1219, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,747
    Wrong as usual, when ranting on that pet subject.

    Getting Cheney under oath would be a reasonable first step toward acquiring that proof, if there is any. It's already not the first step - so it's long overdue, then, in such obviously dubious and apparently incriminating circumstances.
    ? ? I've been saying for years that it's long past time to put Cheney under oath, in investigating half a dozen matters. I think the failure to do that is a severe mark against the credibility and apparent integrity of the Congressional oversight committees. What false motivation did you have in mind ?

    There is no evidence of that, and plenty against it. Why do you insist on something that appears to be contradicted by every fact and circumstance and event in front of you ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Why do you ignore the evidence? if the Democrats had anything that would stand up in a impeachment hearing and a trial they would already be holding them, instead the Democrats are backing water and trying to bury the Privilege Resolution by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, they are running from it as fast as they can.

    As a fact their legal team is telling them that they have nothing, and their central committee is telling them this is not a winning election issue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    this is not a winning election issue...

    That's the only reason.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    exactly
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,747
    You have presented no evidence for me to ignore. There is no evidence or argument visible for your repeated assertions that the Dems would jump on impeachment if it were possible.

    If you have any, lets see it.
     
  9. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    And your evidence is nothing more than allegations you want tested under oath. McCarthy did the same thing. So did Stalin.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The lack of action is evidence in it's self, the fact that the Democrats are trying to bury the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, is evidence of the fact that they know they have nothing to stand up for indictment to impeachment, both parties have lawyers that advise them as to the legality of any action they take, and since there is no action on Impeachment, and the democrats are running from the privileged resolution, it would seem logical that the Legal Advisors to the Democratic Party have told them that they have nothing that would pass muster, and the central committee knows it's a losing campaign issue.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    I think a big part of it is that Republicans will vote along party lines, no matter what the charges.
     
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The same as the Democrats?
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
  14. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    That's right. Democrats aren't partisan. And they never vote along party lines. They vote for what they believe in. The vote for things like the war. Right, Spider?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,747
    That's not logic, that's assumption without evidence. The lack of action by some - not all - Democrats has many other explanations and is evidence of other things entirely, many of which have been given explicitly by the parties involved, none of which involve mindreading by you.

    Some do, some don't, some do part of the time.

    Quite a few did vote their beliefs, with the Iraq war powers bill - did any Republicans ? Which Republicans would you depend on to vote for impeachment if presented with even clearer evidence of wrongdoing than we already have ?
    No. It is dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances that should have been explained under oath years ago.

    There is a great deal of difference between an event, or a combination of circumstances, and an allegation. It is not an allegation that Cheney has refused to submit records of meetings in which he did official business, denying Congressional oversight even the names of the attendees. It is not an allegation that Cheney's office was involved in much of the compilation of evidence for Iraqi wmds, and its preparation for delivery to Congress, evidence later determined to be false, much of it apparently rigged.

    And so forth.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2007
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Just how dumb are you, it is very logical to make a hypothesis on things that don't happen when stimuli is applied, and the stimuli was applied by the introduction of the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, and the lack of action to the stimuli by the Leadership of Democratic shows that they don't have any thing to stand up for a impeachment charge, again if they did there would be a impeachment hearing today.

    There is one other reason that they just might not want the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, to go forward, and that is that they supported all of the actions that lead to the war, they passed a Authorization for the use of Military Force, a authorization for the President to go to war, remember the Democrats insisted that it be brought up before Congress and that Congress needed to authorize the actions of the President, which they did, so they played a major part in the authorization to go to war.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    There were no actions that led to war, it was decided to go to war all along no matter what.
     
  18. te jen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    532
    I was looking at the Presidential Order of Succession in the context of what would happen if there was an impeachment and removal from office of both Bush and Cheney. The next person in line is President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd.

    The immediately obvious problem with this is that in the case of impeachment Byrd would clearly play a leading role in the proceedings. To me this introduces an unacceptable conflict of interest. There are also a host of constitutional questions about whether a member of the legislative branch can succeed a member of the executive.

    One way around all of this would be for Condoleeza Rice to succeed to the presidency in the case of a dual impeachment and removal.

    Regardless of how I or anyone else might feel about Rice, it would be quite something for both Senators Clinton and Obama to be preempted as the first female and black president.
     
  19. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    What you fail to recognize is that people cannot and should not be expected to testify about "dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances." In fact, in criminal cases, they aren't required to testify at all. So what's your point?

    And people should have to answer every allegation under oath? That's ludicrous and unconstitutional.

    And is any of the above illegal?

    Let's remember you said: "Getting Cheney under oath would be a reasonable first step toward acquiring that proof..." In other words, you want to question the man to get information to build a case agains the man. That's dispicable, and probably illegal. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I tend to think one has to have some sort of proof before someone can charge a person and put them under oath.
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940
    You are incorrect, it would first go to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,940

    They may take the fifth, provided they are doing so because their answer might incriminate themselves, or because they are afraid they will be prosecuted wrongly. However, they must answer if that answer will incriminate not themself, but another. In other words, Bush may not take the fifth if the answer to a question incriminates Cheney, and visa versa.

    Also, impeachment is not, strictly speaking, a criminal case.
     
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Per my understanding, it is. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," so what else could it be, if it's not criminal?
     
  23. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    According to the wiki on impeachment, spidergoat is correct in his statements that the impeachment is valid:

    Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the House rules, states that impeachment is set in motion by: charges made on the floor; charges preferred by a memorial; a Member's resolution referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

    As you can see, an investigation and facts aren't a prerequisite.
     

Share This Page