frig 0 #1 October 3, 2003 There has been quite a bit of debate here on the California recall, and it got me thinking about something far more important... when are we going to get George W. recalled??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #2 October 3, 2003 Whenever enough of both houses of Congress are willing to commit political suicide trying to impeach a popular president from their own party. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #3 October 3, 2003 Leave "W" alone ....please.__________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 October 3, 2003 That's assinine. I mean, he's only lied to the American people and Congress and circumvented the constitution that he swore to uphold and defend in an effort to consolidate power in the executive branch. It's not like he got a blow job. Puhhleeesee. You liberals make me sick. Always trying to use the court system to fight abuses of power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 October 3, 2003 There is no Constitutional procedure for "recall" at the Presidential level. Censure, yes. Impeachment, yes. Recall, no.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #6 October 3, 2003 Isn't the official procedure called a "do-over"? It worked in dodgeball. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #7 October 3, 2003 >Whenever enough of both houses of Congress are willing to commit > political suicide trying to impeach a popular president from their own > party. Dunno about that. Supporting impeachment for a popular president would probably be suicide - impeaching someone guilty of supporting treason might just get you re-elected. I mean, who wants to be pro-treason? (or more to the point, who wants to give that sound bite to their opponent?) Depends on what shakes out. His popularity is dropping pretty fast; it's between 50 and 60% depending on whose poll you believe. Last year I never would have believed that he wasn't going to be president for two terms. Too many people liked him too much. My opinion on that changed this summer. We were having dinner with the Rantoul FBO, and his wife, Amy and I were talking about the world. Amy said something noncomittal about Iraq, and she looked very worried, like she shouldn't say anything. We finally got her talking. "I thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq, but now I worry that he didn't plan things very well, and a lot of American boys are going to get killed over there. I sure hope they find those weapons; I'd hate to think all those people died for nothing." "And I worry about this Patriot Act - is it really going to stop terrorism? It seems like it's going to do more harm than good, I think . . ." Middle class, midwestern america, an SUV and a Honda in the driveway, white picket fence, a dog and half a dozen bowling trophies. It's in homes like this that the next election will be decided, not on an Internet forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #8 October 3, 2003 Quoteimpeaching someone guilty of supporting treason might just get you re-elected. Are you suggesting that GWB is guilty of supporting treason? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #9 October 3, 2003 >Are you suggesting that GWB is guilty of supporting treason? Someone in his administration did something treasonous. As to whether he was involved or not - like I said, we have to wait to see what shakes out. Appoint a special counsel, let him investigate the issue, and see what really happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #10 October 3, 2003 Using recent history, I would say that the rules for impeachment vary. For Clinton, he sexually harrassed two of his employees, lied, admitted lying. No problem. I'm not sure what are the things that qualify you for recall. Of course, it helps to have the National Organization of Women be quietly submissive after numerous women bring allegations. The New Politics I suppose. I can remember when they defended womens rights, those were the days. Is this better? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 October 3, 2003 Ok, this is going to sound like a radical idea, but since the election is only about a year away, can we PLEASE not get mired in impeachment proceeding with GWB? If GWB had any sense, he'd have Rove fall on his sword right now and be done with it. GWB probably still won't get re-elected, but at least the tax payers will have been spared a huge expense for ultimately the exact same result.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #12 October 3, 2003 >Ok, this is going to sound like a radical idea, but since the election is > only about a year away, can we PLEASE not get mired in > impeachment proceeding with GWB? I agree; an election is a better way to express disapproval than a recall or an impeachment. I was just answering the guy who thought that an impeachment would be political suicide for the impeachers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 October 3, 2003 Quote Using recent history, I would say that the rules for impeachment vary. For Clinton, he sexually harrassed two of his employees, lied, admitted lying. No problem. I'm not sure what are the things that qualify you for recall. There is no proceedure for "Recall" of the President of the United States in the U.S. Consitution.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #14 October 3, 2003 QuoteSomeone in his administration did something treasonous. Are you sure? It is not clear yet who leaked the name, or if that leak was, in fact, illegal. It may not have been smart, but it may not have been illegal either (oh yeah, and it might not have come from anyone in the administration). Why do we need a special council? FBI agents are not political appointees, are they not capable of conducting an investigation of this nature? IMO they are more capable of conducting a fair investigation than special council who may have political motivation, and do it for alot less money, in a lot less time. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #15 October 3, 2003 Quotethe rules for impeachment vary The rules for impeachment are set forth in the Constitution and do not change. How the Congress chooses to use those rules might. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #16 October 3, 2003 I don't think they're talking about the name leak, I think they're talking about lying to congress to get authorization for military action.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 October 3, 2003 Everything actually. At least I am. Depends on which you choose to believe of GWB though. Is he Pinky or The Brain? An incredible dufus or diabolical genius? Being an incredible dufus is, unfortunately, not against the law. Being a diabolical genius, intent on doing the same thing he does every night, trying to take over the world, well, that might have some repercussions, depending on how he went about it. Before September 11, 2001, I had been content with believing that GWB was the equivalent of Pinky, the incredible dufus that just happened to be along for the ride. Recent events lead me to believe he's more like The Brain, the diabolical genius that for some reason can't see that his plans will ultimately fail because he's overlooked some vital small component and the rest of the world just isn't going to go along with his scheme.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #18 October 3, 2003 lying to Congress is not treason, and if it was not under oath, its not even a crime. Lying to the American people is a way of life in DC, for both parties. It is something that will be an election issue for sure, but that is about all. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #19 October 3, 2003 >It is not clear yet who leaked the name, or if that leak was, in fact, illegal. There is sufficient evidence of that that the FBI/Justice Department has launched an investigation into the White House staff. >Why do we need a special council? I'll let John Ashcroft answer that one: ---------------------------- JOHN ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is that if the law's been violated, we should be able to ascertain that. We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest… ROWLAND EVANS: …The attorney general has shaved down all the allegations that Vice President Gore apparently down to one single allegation -- which telephone he used to make these fundraising calls from. Do you really think that alone is worthy of a special prosecutor? ASHCROFT: …you know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor. If you're abusing government property, if you're abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that. So my own view is that there are plenty of things which should have caused [the Attorney General] a long time ago, to appoint a special prosecutor, an independent investigator. We asked for that on March the 13th of this year in letters from Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. And she's in a bad position…The man who signs her check is the man that she's investigating, and she hasn't been very aggressive about it. ---------------------------------- >IMO they (the FBI) are more capable of conducting a fair investigation . . . It is being run by the Justice Department. The investigators (most of whom are from the Justice Department) are reporting to Robert Mueller of the FBI, so it's nominally an FBI "investigation." However, until an independent prosecutor is named, Ashcroft is still in charge; he must approve any subpoenas for phone records (for example.) Since Karl Rove is currently a suspect, and since he has strong ties to Ashcroft, there is a clear conflict of interest there. As an example of a potential abuse, the justice department recently told the white house to warn their employees to save all memos and emails concering the issue. The white house asked if it was OK if they waited a day to do that. The justice department said "sure." Think that served the purposes of a rapid and accurate investigation? Think an independent investigator would have been OK with giving the White House staff an extra day to accidentally "lose" documents? > . . .and do it for alot less money, in a lot less time. Why are we eager to save money here, but we want to exclude UN weapons inspectors from Iraq and pay out another $600 million for exclusively US investigators to continue searching for the missing WMD's? An administration source that's leaking names of our covert agents is a serious and immediate threat to our nation's security; we should spend what we have to to plug this hole as quickly as possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 October 3, 2003 Telling a lie to Congress is a crime. It doesn't matter if it was under oath or not, if it was written or not, or even if it was intentional or not, a government official can be prosecuted for it. A conspiracy to defraud Congress is a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #21 October 3, 2003 Quotea government official can be prosecuted for it under what statute? (not being a smart ass, just can't find any law that agrees with you)... I can only find where it is testimony given under oath that is a crime.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #22 October 3, 2003 QuoteThere has been quite a bit of debate here on the California recall, and it got me thinking about something far more important... when are we going to get George W. recalled??? He doesn't have much time left in this term. You should wait until after he gets re-elected to try this. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #23 October 3, 2003 QuoteTelling a lie to Congress is a crime. Clinton did it without any problems. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 October 3, 2003 Lying to Congress explainer. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 October 3, 2003 Quote Clinton did it without any problems. As I recall, he was impeached for it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
