Comments on: Hagel: Some Might Seek Bush Impeachment

GOP Senator Says Impeachment Possible If President Pushes Ahead With Iraq Strategy

[toldyouso21]

The wiretap was directed against people who are not American citizens, and the constitution doesn't protect those who are not Americans. Anyway, warrants were obtained in courts for wire surveillance, though they were obtained secretly in order to not alert potential guilty people.
Posted by jdweymouth at 07:40 AM : Mar 27, 2007


LIAR. The warrants were not obtained prior to the wire taps and in many cases were not obtained at all. Bush circumvented FISA and in fact, last year asked that in addition to a law granting him and others domestic amnesty for war crimes, he also be retroactively be granted immunity from prosecution for the illegal wire taps. But like I said, laws can be repealed, even that one.

[toldyouso21]

That's not ground for impeachment. It would be a violation of the constitution. Neither the people, nor the congress elect the president. The president is checked by the Congress by the power of impeachment, but the constitution requires that the president do something illegal first: there is no evidence of illegal activity. Of course we don't want an imperial presidency, but neither do we want a congress who will impeach a president every time he does something they dislike.
Posted by jdweymouth at 02:06 AM : Mar 27, 2007


Illegal wiretaps were illegal and retroactive amnesty can be repealed. In addition, under oath or not, Congress is not to be lied to and can see redress in the courts

[toldyouso21]

The 5th amendment should not apply to her case ... she is not asked to be a witness against herself.


Actually she is. If she was instrumental in lying or manipulating data for political reasons, she would implicate herself and the whitehouse as soon as she opened her mouth or she would have to lie and risk it being repudiated. (you never know the emails others made hard copy of, before the clean uo/purge jobs)

My guess is, the WH wanted her to lie and she chose to not speak rather than become a Scooter Libby and rely on a Pardon. Either way, something stinks to high heaven. I bet there are crimes galore in this mess.

[toldyouso21]

There are no grounds for impeachment. The constitution states that the president can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes, and misdemeanors". Bush is not guilty of any of this. You can't impeach a president because he is pushing forward alone to do what is right. Hagel needs to have some lessons in constitutional law.
Posted by jdweymouth at 11:28 PM : Mar 26, 2007


In 2005, prior to removing our name from the Geneva Conventions, Bush broke the 11th Amendment ratified in 1797. That amendment states we must honor all international treaties, conventions, resolutions. agreements and laws we are signatory to and that neither Congress, the Supreme Court or the executive branch can supercede or have jurisdiction on any breach of international law and must submit to the international court.

In May of 2005, Bush stated that if any American was held in the Hague on war crimes, he would use any mean necessary to free them including fighter jets. Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution not violate it. His statement was in direct violation of the 11th amendment. There are more examples, but that one is enough for grounds for impeachment. It would not be talked about if it was not plausible--and note...the White house has "no comment on that" I guess they don't.

[toldyouso21]

Idon't think george is having a good day today.

First, you have the liason to Gonzales and the White House refusing to testify lest she incriminate herself--guess she knows she is not as good a liar as Al, ***, Karl or George. Makes it look like there must be lots to hide and she knows where the bodies are buried, but does not want to be the narc or the fall guy.

Then you have the news that the administration's chief spin and lie miester might be really ill, leaving pretty, stuttering lil' Dana to handle all the scandals.

Now the Senate have, in defiance with the House gave Bush a money package with strings attached. Bush says he will veto it--which must mean that he is very good at putting troops in harms way, but does not care about leaving them without support if it means he has to compromise. Who does not care about the troops, Mr. President? The ball and to care or not to care is determined by who supports them and who (for their own pride's sake) leaves them high and dry. the money is there...will you even try to set a few deadlines or keep thinking it is your way or the highway?

Be careful, rumours have it that the American people may be in the mood to kick quite a bit of Asphalt!

[inventagod]

Bu$h has effectively declared war on Iran today. The Navy is parading their firepower up and down the coast, with flagrant displays of power and taunting the Irani military. One 'mis-step' and World War III will occur right in front of our eyes. Does ANYONE trust Dubya to do the right thing? Gee, what is his track record?

[realpatriot1]

jdweymouth,

the right to protection from self incrimination only applys if she can't answer a question without implicating herself in a crime. You conservatives have repeatedly been vomiting up the talking points that there is no crime and it's just a fishing expedition.

If there's no fish, there's nothing to worry about. She can even talk about other people's crimes without the 5th amendment coming into play.
Apparently, ya'll can't manage to say anymore that there is no crime;that would be ilogical.

Don't forget, the Republicans in Congress have questions and an oversight responsibility too.

[rharrin1]

Sen. Chuck Hagel: Proof for Liberals that members of "the other side of the aisle" do indeed have moral backbone.

Posted by pakaal at 06:30 PM : Mar 26, 2007

Why doesn't hagel lead the impeachment?

[abbe7]

A first step ...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_strips_Bush_of_US_Attorneys_0327.html

[david1737]

Neo-Cons:

Read it and weap!