Eureka Springs @ 164

Sorry if this is a stupid question..

Could Libby be impeached? And lose his ability to work in govt again as well as pensions and other benefits…. we the people are paying for.

No. Impeachment is removal from office, and Libby holds no office.

Impeachment is an act which can remove from office and prohibit the holding of office or receiving the “emoulements of office”.

So Libby CAN BE IMPEACHED…banned from holding future positions of trust and have his pension and other priveleges of office revoked.

This Libby crap is cheap theater to get our minds off the major scam in Iraq where there are now more Blackwater contractor/troops than US Armed Forces–the arithmetic of redeployment has begun!!

Is Broder silent? Or is he on vacation? How could he have missed this strategic analysis?

Or do we have to hear it from that idiot Toensing woman. She’d try to sell us that we never really invaded a non-threatening country.
boo yah

“What impeachment is for is to remove someone from office who can no longer be trusted with the power of that office.” — Darrel

That’s the idea, Darrel, but IT HAS NEVER WORKED. Kudos to Paul. I wish everyone understood the issue this well. Maybe we could stop wasting so much time and apply our energies to something that will yield some positive results.
P.S. Paul- are you a fellow law grad?

• The impeachment power is a MYTH.

The indictment power is what we need to free up. That involves removing Gonzales, and the crony USAs.

I say all this after TWO YEARS of intensive effort for impeachment in from 2002 to 2004, when we were in the minority, and going to hell in a handbasket.

Rep. Conyers agrees with Pelosi. As chair of the House Judicial Committee, he would have to pass any bill of impeachment to the floor. He even wrote a book detailing 25 major federal crimes by Bushco (how many of you have read it? It’s $8.83 at Amazon).

http://tinyurl.com/2f98w8

He also was there for Nixon, so it’s not like he doesn’t understand the process.

That’s the idea, Darrel, but IT HAS NEVER WORKED.

• The impeachment power is a MYTH.

The indictment power is what we need to free up. That involves removing Gonzales, and the crony USAs.

I say all this after TWO YEARS of intensive effort for impeachment in from 2002 to 2004, when we were in the minority, and going to hell in a handbasket.

Rep. Conyers agrees with Pelosi. As chair of the House Judicial Committee, he would have to pass any bill of impeachment to the floor. He even wrote a book detailing 25 major federal crimes by Bushco (how many of you have read it? It’s $8.83 at Amazon).

http://tinyurl.com/2f98w8

He also was there for Nixon, so it’s not like he doesn’t understand the process.

If the impeachment fails won’t the investigation into the multiple reasons for impeachment do harm to the administration? And if investigations take place isn’t it possible that TONS more info will be found resulting in a successful impeachment?

• The problem is that we’re dealing with a complicit party in Congress that will NOT vote the facts.

We would also turn power back over to the other side and allow them to restore a measure of their credibility by playing defense, instead of HAVING to defend themselves from indictable offense after indictable offense uncovered in the committee process.

We MUST remove the AG and the crony USAs. That job is before us; impeachment of the executive is not. People really should throw their tomatoes at their enemies, instead of the Dem Congress, which is restoring the Constitution on a daily basis.

From the moment the Democrats stated that impeachment wasn’t an option…well they may as well have bent over and pulled their pants down. Remember the Republicans didn’t hesitate to try and impeach Clinton. They knew they weren’t going to succeed but they went for it anyway. Meanwhile Laurel and Hardy…I mean Reid and Pelosi may as well be saying “Mother may I…”

So much for instant karma. They’ve rigged the game in their favor. I’ve said it before: Buch and co. are laughing all the way to bank.

People see impeachment as requiring more than just disagreement with politics or with how someone conducts their business.

That’s because the people who think the way you do have a fundamental lack of understanding of what impeachment is for. It’s not a penalty for doing something wrong. Someone who is impeached — according to the Constitution — is still ” liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

What impeachment is for is to remove someone from office who can no longer be trusted with the power of that office. Someone who is incompetent. Someone who is abusive of their power. Someone who uses their office for personal gain or retribution against their enemies. The purpose of impeachment is to protect the nation from a misuse or failure to use the power of the office.

So no, there’s no paradox in saying Clinton shouldn’t be impeached and saying Bush should be impeached. Was Clinton abusing the power of his office (not “Office”) when he committed perjury about having sex with Monica Lewinsky? Did he abuse the power of his office in covering it up? Did he abuse the power of his office to punish the people who were trying to remove him from office? Those are impeachable offenses. The fact that he committed perjury — or even if he’d committed murder — would not in and of themselves be impeachable, unless the Senate decided that he was no longer capable of wielding his power in a reasonable manner.

Bush explicitly used his presidential power to commute the sentence of a former White House staffer in the Libby case. If he did so in order to cover up other abuse of power by the White House, that is the very essence of an impeachment case. That’s what iot’s for.

Clinton’s act of ‘obstruction’ was in the case of his own act of sexual indiscretion.

• Bush’s communtation and other acts of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY are to cover over TREASON.

See if you can tell the difference, ****.

MOD note: Small edit.

CH Truth @ 229

Only one problem Scarecrow…

How can you advocate it is wrong for the President to overturn the resultes of a jury in one breath but in the next breath suggest that the results of an election should be overturned?

People see impeachment as requiring more than just disagreement with politics or with how someone conducts their business.

But isn’t it ironic that you would suggest impeachment for commuting the sentence of someone who was found guilty of perjury and obstruction… when you likely didn’t support the impeachment of Bill Clinton who committed perjury and obstruction himself? Kind of hard to argue rule of law?

HUH??? But, what about us silly folk who think this whole gawdferrotten mess traces to an illegally overturned election in 2000, followed by a stolen election in 2004?

I SEE your dubble-negative and RAISE, one HEQQ of an OBJECTION to your whole line of thot, fella!

apologies for the shouting, everyone… just back from firing off some hopefully pithy-but-respectful prose to several congresscritters in re obstruction of justice & impeachment & all that silly little chatter with which we fill our days here.
*line of smoke still curling up from top of head*

• In the two cases where it has been used with chief executives, the impeachment process was a Congressional CRIME.

INIDICTMENT AND RESIGNATION is the more reliable path, which is what we are following — and we are making definite progress toward that goal.