GOP Congressman Predicts 30 House Seat Loss

mm wrote:
Tell me CI,
Using this as a standard,did you support the impeachment of Clinton?


mm, Do you know anyting about perspective? The Senate dropped the charge.

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm wrote:
Tell me CI,
Using this as a standard,did you support the impeachment of Clinton?


mm, Do you know anyting about perspective? The Senate dropped the charge.

Actually,they didnt.
He was impeached by the house,then tried and aquitted by the Senate.
Thats the way it works.
The House impeaches,the Senate tries.

The Bush apologists are becoming completely unhinged!

And just to underline things, after it was all over, the Republican House got rid of the Special Prosecutor. Even the Republicans wanted to make sure that nothing like Ken Starr or his cockamamie, out-of-control "investigation" could ever happen again.

But Mysteryman, CI was saying that Bush should be impeached and convicted because of gross misuse of US troops. Clinton did not do that.

That is the basis of Cicerone Imposter's impeachment push.

You should support impeachment if you believe in the Constitution, whatever party allegiance you have. But even for those who only speak tactics, it's foolish.

mm, You are arguing in circles. What Clinton did by lying about his sexual encounter with Monica was dumb, but not a danger to our country. Everything in law has its perspective; the same crime committed by different people are treated differently. That's FACT.

It requires a bit of rational thinking, but Clinton's lies were dropped by the Senate, because they didn't amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors," and they have the responsibility to determine such. Starr just went too far to investigate what was essentially a private sexual affair. The penalty for that doesn't amount to high crimes no matter how one interprets it.

It's up to the House to impeach Bush, and the Senate to determine and decide the charge, if any. Many of us see Bush's actions in Iraq to be illegal and meets the "high crimes and misdemeanor" statute; that doesn't mean the House will decide the same, or that the Senate will agree with the House if it goes that far.

mm, "Their constitutional duty" is a slippery slope that I'm not willing to get involved in. Besides, you should know better than to ask such stupid q's.

Ask yourself that q, and tell us what you come up with.

mm wrote:
As long as they are doing their duty,as laid out by the Constitution,I have no problem with it.

That's a nonanswer if I ever saw one. In other words, anything they do is okay.

Was the House impeachment of Clinton illegal? Not that I know of.

But the House showed terrible judgment in deciding to go forward with impeachment proceedings. That's where I have the problem.

If you agree that the Clinton impeachment was big waste of everyone's time, then I don't see how you can say the impeachment was OK by you, merely because it was not illegal for them to decide to go forth with it. They had the option to save everyone time and grief by NOT going forward with it, so why do you say it was OK?

Was the House impeachment of Clinton illegal? Not that I know of.

But the House showed terrible judgment in deciding to go forward with impeachment proceedings. That's where I have the problem.

If you agree that the Clinton impeachment was big waste of everyone's time, then I don't see how you can say the impeachment was OK by you, merely because it was not illegal for them to decide to go forth with it. They had the option to save everyone time and grief by NOT going forward with it, so why do you say it was OK?

There is no precedent that anything the House decides to impeach a president for could possibly be illegal. Until a precedent is set, what former President Ford said and myself and many pundits concur that the House can impeach the president for any reason it sees fit. The only recourse is that the Senate would not convict on an unjustifed charge and people could vote their rep out of office if they disagree with the impeachment.

mm wrote:
As long as they are doing their duty,as laid out by the Constitution,I have no problem with it.

Okay, what in your opinion constitutes "their duty laid out by the Constitution?"


I may disagree with their actions,but as long as they are following the constitution, then its ok by me.

Since the government is responsible to address the issue of what is "constituional," do you feel that the administration, the congress, and the supreme court have lived up to their responsibilities since our country was established? How about during the Bush administration?

Since the government is responsible to address the issue of what is "constituional," do you feel that the administration, the congress, and the supreme court have lived up to their responsibilities since our country was established? How about during the Bush administration?