-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
GA Congressman calls for Bush impeachment
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
The Democrats will not get anywhere with this.
Transcript from Rush's show:
RUSH: Here's a man (Clinton) who was just a few months ago over in Dubai denouncing the war in Iraq, the war in terror, then he comes back to New York and speaks out in favor of it. I'm not so sure the president is not going to speak out. I think as always happens in these circumstances, the Clintons are nailed, so what they're doing with Gorelick going out there and talking to the Washington newspaper saying, "Well, it was unsettled what was going on. We weren't sure that Congress couldn't trump our inherent authority." That means they're circling the wagons. The Clinton people -- and they are loyal to Clinton first, foremost, and always -- are circling the wagons and at the right time they'll come out and do just the opposite of what you say. They will say they didn't do this, they never had any intention of doing this. They will say that this effort by the president is phony because he lied about the war in Iraq, there's no reason to be spying on people because it's a phony war, there were no weapons of mass destruction, it's all being done by Bush because he's power mad and hungry and wants to spy on innocent American citizens. We had to do it in the Clinton administration because we were dealing with white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing, and Carter had to do it because he wasn't dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis. There's no excuse for this. If you think Clinton's going to come out and give cover for Bush on this, I'd be one of the most stunned persons in the country if this happened. I think they're circling the wagons to try to do just the opposite.
Transcript from Rush's show:
RUSH: Here's a man (Clinton) who was just a few months ago over in Dubai denouncing the war in Iraq, the war in terror, then he comes back to New York and speaks out in favor of it. I'm not so sure the president is not going to speak out. I think as always happens in these circumstances, the Clintons are nailed, so what they're doing with Gorelick going out there and talking to the Washington newspaper saying, "Well, it was unsettled what was going on. We weren't sure that Congress couldn't trump our inherent authority." That means they're circling the wagons. The Clinton people -- and they are loyal to Clinton first, foremost, and always -- are circling the wagons and at the right time they'll come out and do just the opposite of what you say. They will say they didn't do this, they never had any intention of doing this. They will say that this effort by the president is phony because he lied about the war in Iraq, there's no reason to be spying on people because it's a phony war, there were no weapons of mass destruction, it's all being done by Bush because he's power mad and hungry and wants to spy on innocent American citizens. We had to do it in the Clinton administration because we were dealing with white supremacists like Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing, and Carter had to do it because he wasn't dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis. There's no excuse for this. If you think Clinton's going to come out and give cover for Bush on this, I'd be one of the most stunned persons in the country if this happened. I think they're circling the wagons to try to do just the opposite.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I have found Rush to be much less entertaining since he decided to divorce his wife.
His latest tirades remind me of the late 1990s when his only apparent goal was to force Bill Clinton from office.
Now his only goal is apparently to defend whatever George W. Bush does.
Get over your divorce, Rush, and go back to entertaining political discussion.
His latest tirades remind me of the late 1990s when his only apparent goal was to force Bill Clinton from office.
Now his only goal is apparently to defend whatever George W. Bush does.
Get over your divorce, Rush, and go back to entertaining political discussion.
You may be right. I have read it stated as both the committee and just the leaders. I have also seen it stated that, in addition, the party leaders of Congress were notified as well as the judge that heads the FISA court.
I may be wrong about the 20% but it was based on 18 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee plus the party leaders which would be over 20% of the Senate.
Maybe, when all the initial over reacting has ended , we will find out more and won't be so confused.
The political posturing will continue, of course.
The Galatian
Active Member
Yes. This is way too early to make a decision on such a thing.
Let's see if he actually did it.
Let's see if he actually did it.
There has to be 2/3 majority vote (67) of the senate to impeach the standing president
Even if all the Dems voted to impeach, seventeen GOP "yes" votes would be necessary to impeach.
Not very likely given the current debate as to whether the president "wilfully" violated the law.
Remember? There was not 1 impeachment vote among the 50 Dem senators against President Clinton in February 1999 even though the allegation of "false and misleading" statements given to the Federal Grand Jury on August 17, 1998 were a matter of record.
This deadly partisan revenge war probably started with the Nixon administration and if it doesn't cease soon there are some proverbs which come to mind (one of them is Holy Writ) : "a house divided against itself cannot stand" or "united we stand, divided we fall" or the one on the lips of our enemies: "divide and conquer".
My opinion of course.
HankD
Even if all the Dems voted to impeach, seventeen GOP "yes" votes would be necessary to impeach.
Not very likely given the current debate as to whether the president "wilfully" violated the law.
Remember? There was not 1 impeachment vote among the 50 Dem senators against President Clinton in February 1999 even though the allegation of "false and misleading" statements given to the Federal Grand Jury on August 17, 1998 were a matter of record.
This deadly partisan revenge war probably started with the Nixon administration and if it doesn't cease soon there are some proverbs which come to mind (one of them is Holy Writ) : "a house divided against itself cannot stand" or "united we stand, divided we fall" or the one on the lips of our enemies: "divide and conquer".
My opinion of course.
HankD
KenH
Well-Known Member
Actually, the House votes on impeachment and the Senate hold a trial to vote on removal from office.
There are 44 Democrats plus 1 independent that usually votes with them. At the moment, it would require at least 22 Republican senators to vote for removal in order to replace President Bush.
From the U.S. constitution, Article I:
"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
That's what I meant, thanks for the correction Ken.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article1.html
In any event Nixon, Clinton and now all the hooting and chest pounding by the dems RE: "Impeach Bush", means delight to our enemies because our nation is being weakened from within.
HankD
Granted Ken, but what price retribution? He won't be sentenced even if impeached, we will receive another international black eye, the GOP will be inflammed to seek vengence and the public trust in the Office of the President will be destroyed.
Yes, each side says "but our case is worthy to be prosecuted" (a la the GOP vs Clinton), as the chief law enforcement officer "He lied under oath repeatedly", "He committed perjury", etc.
It has to stop because a house divided WILL fall.
But it probably won't stop no matter which side gets into office. The witch hunts will start up all over again. Scandals (real and/or imagined) will be published and debated and the nation will eventually suffer another self-inflicted blow.
Clinton should have received a private censure as well as Bush for his poor judgment (if indeed it was). This impeachment-mania is going to destroy us IMO.
I have a feeling that if each administration since Washington were put under a microscope some offence or infraction could be found.
We are allowing the committing of political Hari-Kari IMO.
HankD
This is true mainly because we (Christians) are putting too much faith in the political process, and nowhere near enough in God , for the solving of our problems.
Ten righteous persons would have saved Sodom & Gomorrah; can there be found the % equivalent in the USA to salvage this once great nation?
emeraldctyangel
New Member
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/23/attack/main519606.shtml
This is what he wants to impeach over?
Sounds like the good Representative, with all his experience in the civil rights movement, was around for 9-11 and the Patriot Act...has he forgotton?
How can we be considered "straying" over something that was decided and carried out since 2002? Where were the complaints then?
This is what he wants to impeach over?
Sounds like the good Representative, with all his experience in the civil rights movement, was around for 9-11 and the Patriot Act...has he forgotton?
How can we be considered "straying" over something that was decided and carried out since 2002? Where were the complaints then?
From the above link: "Congress last year passed and President Bush signed the Patriot Act, which among other things loosened standards for obtaining warrants. Prior to the passage of the new law, government officials had to prove their primary purpose for monitoring was foreign intelligence."
Your link says that warrants became much easier to obtain after the Patriot Act, but it seems that the administration decided to bypass warrants altogether.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Of course, there would.
The President's name is George W. Bush.
The blind hate of his political opponents is visceral. </font>[/QUOTE]There was no hatred shown toward Clinton during the eight years he was President, right?
Priscilla Ann
Member
Carpo:
There was far more hatred shown toward Clinton during his presidency than to George W. Bush during his presidency. Who can forget the hatred toward Clinton from the Religious Right?
There was far more hatred shown toward Clinton during his presidency than to George W. Bush during his presidency. Who can forget the hatred toward Clinton from the Religious Right?