Impeachment

[stelow]

This is a two part series about the abuses of our current administration.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/v...pups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html;prefchange=1

 

[stelow]

It's ironic that Clinton went through the impeachment process for lying about an extra marital event. The abuses by this administration are far more extreme and not so much a peep from the people.

 

[Anovah]

great quote,,, "my country is more important than my party"

(still watching the rest of it)

 

[silentreader]

It's ironic that Clinton went through the impeachment process for lying about an extra marital event. The abuses by this administration are far more extreme and not so much a peep from the people.

forget what the reason was, he lied to a grand jury. your word-smithing does not remove that fact.

secondly, what abuses can you possibly make a legal case for? remember, your hatred for Bush isn't proof.

 

[KomissarSteve]

forget what the reason was, he lied to a grand jury. your word-smithing does not remove that fact.

secondly, what abuses can you possibly make a legal case for? remember, your hatred for Bush isn't proof.

At the very, very least, obstruction of justice in the Lawyergate investigation - the same crime for which Richard Nixon was impeached.

 

[bgrass1234]

great quote,,, "my country is more important than my party"

(still watching the rest of it)

a better quote would be liberty is more important than any country.

 

[KomissarSteve]

a better quote would be liberty is more important than any country.

But see, I don't necessarily agree with this. It's all very nice to have your liberties guaranteed on paper, but as Russia's experience in the 90's demonstrated clearly to us, if the government can't protect those rights, then those rights really don't mean much.

 

[bgrass1234]

But see, I don't necessarily agree with this. It's all very nice to have your liberties guaranteed on paper, but as Russia's experience in the 90's demonstrated clearly to us, if the government can't protect those rights, then those rights really don't mean much.

In the end you alone are responsible for defending your own rights. Our government sure isn't responsible. Can you sue the state when you get robbed.

 

[KomissarSteve]

In the end you alone are responsible for defending your own rights.

This "every man for himself" mentality is completely unworkable. It doesn't matter if you protect your home with a gun; a guy with a bigger gun is always going to show up and overpower you. That's why humans band together and create laws and governments to enforce those laws. Governments do this imperfectly, but they certainly protect individuals better than an individual could protect himself against the rest of the world.

Our government sure isn't responsible.

The roads you drive on and the enormous military that protects you from aggressive foreign states and terrorists indicate otherwise.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Why is the mentality without goverment everyone is instantly at each other's throats? Community precedes goverment, not the other way around.

 

[bgrass1234]

This "every man for himself" mentality is completely unworkable. It doesn't matter if you protect your home with a gun; a guy with a bigger gun is always going to show up and overpower you. That's why humans band together and create laws and governments to enforce those laws. Governments do this imperfectly, but they certainly protect individuals better than an individual could protect himself against the rest of the world.



The roads you drive on and the enormous military that protects you from aggressive foreign states and terrorists indicate otherwise.

Like I said, you alone are responsible for defending your rights. If you choose to join with others to be stronger, thats you taking responsibility, not putting it on someone else. To initiate force against someone else to help ensure your rights are protected is wrong.


Can I sue the state when it fails to protect me?

 

[MachZer0]

At the very, very least, obstruction of justice in the Lawyergate investigation - the same crime for which Richard Nixon was impeached.

Richard Nixon was never impeached. The only elected President ever impeached in America was the Democrat, Bill Clinton

I believe I've corrected this error before. Was that you I corrected?

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Can I sue the state when it fails to protect me?

It's been tried before and hasn't worked.

 

[MachZer0]

Can I sue the state when it fails to protect me?

Not unless you're an illegal alien.

 

[oldbetang]

At the very, very least, obstruction of justice in the Lawyergate investigation - the same crime for which Richard Nixon was impeached.

How so? Those lawyers worked for the Executive Branch. They worked for and served at the discretion of the President. He had every right to get rid of them for whatever reason. Nixon was threatened with impeachment for firing lawyers who were investigating illegal activities that Nixon was implicated in.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Richard Nixon was never impeached. The only elected President ever impeached in America was the Democrat, Bill Clinton

Regarding Nixon, you're right - threatened to be impeached is what I should have said.

Regarding whether or not Clinton was the only one to be impeached - wrongo. Andrew Johnson, a Republican, also was impeached.

I believe I've corrected this error before. Was that you I corrected?

I don't believe so, no - but you're free to check my post history.

 

[KomissarSteve]

How so? Those lawyers worked for the Executive Branch. They worked for and served at the discretion of the President. He had every right to get rid of them for whatever reason.

I was referring to the White House's staunch refusal to surrender Harriet Meyers and Scott Jennings in the investigation to protect themselves, actually. BUT, since you bring it up - no, the President does NOT have "every right to get rid of them for whatever reason." Firing them because they weren't staunch-enough Neocons is not an acceptable reason, and that's why the Executive Branch is currently under investigation by Congress.

 

[stelow]

Richard Nixon was never impeached. The only elected President ever impeached in America was the Democrat, Bill Clinton

I believe I've corrected this error before. Was that you I corrected?

Nixon did resign after it was certain that he would be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.

On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States. Nixon resigned on August 8.

http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Nixon_Impeachment.html

Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Now you stand corrected.

 

[stelow]

great quote,,, "my country is more important than my party"

(still watching the rest of it)

 

[stelow]

forget what the reason was, he lied to a grand jury. your word-smithing does not remove that fact.

secondly, what abuses can you possibly make a legal case for? remember, your hatred for Bush isn't proof.

This is not about hatred and I will leave the legal stuff to Congress to sort out. He has led this country toward a dictatorship through an attack on our Constitution and on our freedoms.