Possible impeachment hearings

2knees · Post by **2knees** » Jan 24th, '06, 21:41

I wonder how far this will get.

Issue Date: January 23-29, 2006, Posted On: 1/23/2006
Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst
The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.
"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaMa ... chment.htm

And conservative news magazine Insight leaks the stunning news this morning that "The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress." Insight is owned by the well-connected, conservative Washington Times newspaper.

Reports Insight, "Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. "

At least five Republican senators....Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chuck Hagel (R-NE).... have publicly expressed deep reservations about the legality of President Bush's deliberate decision to spy on American citizens without judicial permission and oversight.

Sources say the White House was shocked by three incidents into acceptance of possible impeachment proceedings about President Bush....

The first on January 15 when Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Republican Arlen Specter commented about possible remedies if the President broke US surveillance laws, "Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price. "

The second on January 16 when Al Gore delivered his brilliant Martin Luther King, Jr, Day speech, in which he firmly proclaimed, "...the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. "

The third when the New York Times reported on January 19, 2006, "A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are inconsistent with the law. "
The first formal step in possible impeachment proceedings will be an open hearing set for February 6, 2006 by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Bush eavesdropping program. Per the New York Times, "The hearing, titled 'Wartime executive power and the N.S.A.'s surveillance authority,' is expected to include testimony from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales."

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Jan 25th, '06, 08:14

Not far at all. IMHO now that GWB and friends have renamed wire tapping "Terrorist Telephone Surveilance" or something of the sort....you can expect any dems that oppose will get harsh publicity from the GOP ad-campaign for 2008.

At least if it does happen I wouldn't suspect many prominent or possible candidates for 2008 will get in the limelight. Most of this news is probably generated from the bloggers and left-wing lobbyists.

Although I must admit, there are for more legal matters to be considered in GWB's case from what occured to Clinton during his term. Then agian, at least GWB told the truth right?

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jan 25th, '06, 12:43

The really scary thing about all this is that if you listen to Bush's justification - i.e. that Congress granted him the authority in the resolution they passed after 9/11 - he's essentially saying that he now
has virtually unlimited dictatorial power as long as he can couch things in terms of the "war on terror".

That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Jan 25th, '06, 12:52

BigKahuna13 wrote:The really scary thing about all this is that if you listen to Bush's justification - i.e. that Congress granted him the authority in the resolution they passed after 9/11 - he's essentially saying that he now
has virtually unlimited dictatorial power as long as he can couch things in terms of the "war on terror".

That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.

I was making light of the situation in a sarcastic manner hehe. I disagree that any such legislation was passed after 9/11. From what I read it was "attempted" but "failed".

I don't think what the NSA did was legal, nor do I condone it.

On the other hand, GWB did not lie to the American people, but rather broke the law that seems fuzzy (to me) at best.

I still haven't really decided if impeachment is the way to go, but I don't think it's going to happen regardless of my thoughts.

ski_adk · Post by **ski_adk** » Jan 25th, '06, 13:00

That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.

It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jan 25th, '06, 17:25

ski_adk wrote:
That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.
It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.

No there wasn't, but I don't think Bush got that memo. What he's attempting to do is so far removed from what the framers envisioned the President's role to be that they'd hardly recognize it today. They were almost uniformly scared to death of an Imperial Presidency and spent more time debating the executive's role than perhaps anything else.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Jan 25th, '06, 17:35

BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:
That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.
It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.
No there wasn't, but I don't think Bush got that memo. What he's attempting to do is so far removed from what the framers envisioned the President's role to be that they'd hardly recognize it today. They were almost uniformly scared to death of an Imperial Presidency and spent more time debating the executive's role than perhaps anything else.

Show the other night about John Adams and Jefferson. Each of them, right or wrong, userped the constitution and everything they had hoped it would prevent by issueing exectutive orders. Adams had people arrested and jailed for defaming him in public. Jefferson did similar things just to become president. So, maybe we should all review what others have done before condeming GW. Even everybodies fav, FDR squewed the law, just a little (like interring several thousand US citizens).

Cityskier · Post by **Cityskier** » Jan 25th, '06, 17:59

Dr. NO wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:
That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.
It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.
No there wasn't, but I don't think Bush got that memo. What he's attempting to do is so far removed from what the framers envisioned the President's role to be that they'd hardly recognize it today. They were almost uniformly scared to death of an Imperial Presidency and spent more time debating the executive's role than perhaps anything else.
Show the other night about John Adams and Jefferson. Each of them, right or wrong, userped the constitution and everything they had hoped it would prevent by issueing exectutive orders. Adams had people arrested and jailed for defaming him in public. Jefferson did similar things just to become president. So, maybe we should all review what others have done before condeming GW. Even everybodies fav, FDR squewed the law, just a little (like interring several thousand US citizens).

What a sad-ass cop-out argument that is, Doc. Power corrupts, no doubt. But the actions of those in the past should not be used to condone illegal actions of those in the present. They should be viewed by all of us as a warning, not as an excuse to bend over and take it.

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Jan 25th, '06, 20:33

Impeach Dubya? Be careful what you wish for....

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jan 25th, '06, 22:42

Dr. NO wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:
That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.
It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.
No there wasn't, but I don't think Bush got that memo. What he's attempting to do is so far removed from what the framers envisioned the President's role to be that they'd hardly recognize it today. They were almost uniformly scared to death of an Imperial Presidency and spent more time debating the executive's role than perhaps anything else.
Show the other night about John Adams and Jefferson. Each of them, right or wrong, userped the constitution and everything they had hoped it would prevent by issueing exectutive orders. Adams had people arrested and jailed for defaming him in public. Jefferson did similar things just to become president. So, maybe we should all review what others have done before condeming GW. Even everybodies fav, FDR squewed the law, just a little (like interring several thousand US citizens).

Does the fact that Jefferson and Adams may have done wrong somehow exonerate Bush?

I rather see the mistakes of Jefferson and Adams (and Washington for that matter) as proof positive of the wisdom of the separation of powers concept. The same concept that our current President is doing his level best to gut.

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Jan 25th, '06, 22:49

Geoff wrote:Impeach Dubya? Be careful what you wish for....

I thought he was already running the country behind the scenes. :(

2knees · Post by **2knees** » Jan 26th, '06, 00:10

tyrolean_skier wrote: I thought he was already running the country behind the scenes. :(

Right on tyrolean. I couldnt agree more.

While impeachment probably wont happen, it frightens me that the current administration is using powers supposedly granted to them post 9/11 to justify what otherwise would clearly be an illegal practice. The patriot act and any other measures I’m unaware of that were rammed through based on the overriding fear at the time seem to have usurped our own concern for our rights. Where do you draw the line between a war on terror and a police state? Where and how does it start? Not with one huge watershed event, but rather with slow erosion. We hear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom and hate our democracy all the time but we simply stand by and watch it snatched away by our own leaders.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Jan 26th, '06, 08:23

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Dr. NO wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
ski_adk wrote:
That should make everyone - including Republicans - very, very nervous.
It should make everyone nervous, however, it doesn' excuse the president from the Constitution. There was no Constitutional amendment passed that changed the power structure of the government.
No there wasn't, but I don't think Bush got that memo. What he's attempting to do is so far removed from what the framers envisioned the President's role to be that they'd hardly recognize it today. They were almost uniformly scared to death of an Imperial Presidency and spent more time debating the executive's role than perhaps anything else.
Show the other night about John Adams and Jefferson. Each of them, right or wrong, userped the constitution and everything they had hoped it would prevent by issueing exectutive orders. Adams had people arrested and jailed for defaming him in public. Jefferson did similar things just to become president. So, maybe we should all review what others have done before condeming GW. Even everybodies fav, FDR squewed the law, just a little (like interring several thousand US citizens).
Does the fact that Jefferson and Adams may have done wrong somehow exonerate Bush?

I rather see the mistakes of Jefferson and Adams (and Washington for that matter) as proof positive of the wisdom of the separation of powers concept. The same concept that our current President is doing his level best to gut.

Not necessarily exonerate, but set presidence (sp). If one President did something, FDR and his FBI files and such, and it is not stopped by congress or the court, it is open license for others to use. It has been noted that many presidents used spying (wire taps etc.) without the courts. If one got away with it, then it is open season, until the congress or courts stop it.