Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

1. The Presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush flouts the very Oath of Office.

Bush's Oath is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, Domestic or Foreign.

Bush attacks the Constitution.

Impeach him & Cheney.

Case closed.

Impeach Bush NOW!

parados wrote:

Multiple counts? Geez. For someone that demands perfect evidence of a lie from Bush you sure like to heap crap when it comes to your claims. Provide the evidence of ONE case of perjury by Clinton that meets the legal standard to be prosecuted.

Here are two:

In the sexual harassment lawsuit, he said he had not had sex with Lewinsky.

In the grand jury investigation, he said he had not fondled Lewinsky's breasts.

parados wrote:

There are instances of Clinton being misleading but misleading doesn't rise to perjury unless the statement is provably false and the question is in no way confusing.

The semen stained dress provided DNA evidence that he had sex with Lewinsky.

Lewinsky claims that he fondled her breasts. She is the one with the credible story.

parados wrote:

Obstruction is even more of a stretch. Not much evidence there.

Aside from Betty Currie's hiding of the gifts that Clinton gave Lewinsky, and Lewinsky's testimony that Curry was sent by Clinton to collect the gifts.

And Curry's testimony about what Clinton said when he tried to coach her to lie.

parados wrote:

There can be no obstruction in statements by a defendant in a civil trial if there is not perjury.

That is incorrect. Obstruction of justice is a separate charge that is independent of perjury.

parados wrote:

There are many instances of Bush making statements that are proven to be factually false. You can no more provide evidence of CLinton's intent to deceive in his testimony than anyone can about Bush's intent to make his factually false statements. Either you have to have the same standard for lies or not. Does a lie require intent? If so then you can't prove perjury that you keep claiming Clinton committed since "intent" is part of the perjury requirement.

So when Clinton said he did not have sex with Lewinsky and did not fondle her breasts, he was mistaken?

I don't think that is plausible.

Joe Nation wrote:

The sanction of, and ordering the use of, and directing the execution of torture is a high crime.

That is incorrect. High crimes are those crimes in which the government is the victim of the crime.

It is hard to see how the government was the victim of the torture.

Those being held in Cuba are not being held as prisoners of war and you know that.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're just a bunch of crybabies who don't have the good sportsmanship to wait until the next election and try to do better. None of you can provide a decent case that there is a specific law that has been violated, and state exactly what the violation was.

You are the crybaby, always whining that evryone is picking on your hero. Brandon, are you secretly in love with George Bush?

I note that in your posts, you do not, in fact, list any law that he is violated, but, instead, talk only about me.

Parados, Brandon is one of the most boring posters on A2K. He is soooo predictable. He has his little list of responses from which to select. His most overused one is demanding proof of (take your choice) to everyone's posts.

BBB

Joe Nation wrote:

Followed by this, since Orally wants the government, and not just us, to be the victim of Bush's High Crimes, it's called Abuse of Power

Abuse of power is a high misdemeanor (but definitely an impeachable offense).

Now all we need is a reasonable charge that Bush has abused his power.

Joe Nation wrote:

Kind of a mushy set of terms but that's how the founders wanted it. Undefined, or more precisely, to be defined by Congress at the time.

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

Joe Nation wrote:

Hello? One, even a President, cannot contravene, violate and overstep the laws of this nation without damage to it's government and it's totality of it's ruling power.

The victim of the crime is the entity that was damaged by it.

For instance, when Clinton went on his rampage of perjury and obstruction, the victim was the courts, which had their proceedings undermined, and the independent council's office, which had their investigation undermined.

Joe Nation wrote:

So this particular case is a two step: not only did he violate the laws on intelligence gathering without warrants (Amd IV and the Foreign Intelligence Security Act)

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit reasonable searches.

Unless you've got a Supreme Court ruling in hand to the effect that these searches are unreasonable, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Joe Nation wrote:

he also acted abusively in the conduct of his powers.

I've not seen any such abuse.

Joe Nation wrote:

Careful now, Orally, we must stick with 'enemy combatants', they can't be war criminals without some crime being charged unless this really is a Kafka novel.

They were fighting without a proper uniform. That is enough to deny them Geneva 3, and charge them with war crimes.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter.

a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

oralloy wrote:

High crimes and high misdemeanors have a precise legal meaning. Nothing mushy or ill-defined about them.

All of us would like your source for this precise legal meaning.

oralloy wrote:

Abuse of power is a high misdemeanor (but definitely an impeachable offense).

Now all we need is a reasonable charge that Bush has abused his power.

Asked and answered.

Bush flouts the very Oath of Office.

. . . .

Bush attacks the Constitution.

freedom4free wrote:

Bush flouts the very Oath of Office.

. . . .

Bush attacks the Constitution.

I've seen no evidence of these two alleged events.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're just a bunch of crybabies who don't have the good sportsmanship to wait until the next election and try to do better. None of you can provide a decent case that there is a specific law that has been violated, and state exactly what the violation was.

You are the crybaby, always whining that evryone is picking on your hero. Brandon, are you secretly in love with George Bush?

I note that in your posts, you do not, in fact, list any law that he is violated, but, instead, talk only about me.

Brandon, trying to reasons with cultists is a waste of time.

Parados, Brandon is one of the most boring posters on A2K. He is soooo predictable. He has his little list of responses from which to select. His most overused one is demanding proof of (take your choice) to everyone's posts.

BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Parados, Brandon is one of the most boring posters on A2K. He is soooo predictable. He has his little list of responses from which to select. His most overused one is demanding proof of (take your choice) to everyone's posts.

BBB

That is the problem with this medium. In real life, someone like Brandon would either be ignored or laughed at. Here, someone will always respond to his mantra.