GOP Congressman Predicts 30 House Seat Loss

Yes,it is a problem.
As I see it,there are only a few options...

We have another civil war,that would most likely tear the country apart permanently.

We start holding our govt,including the President,accountable for their actions,both good and bad.

We throw all the incumbents out and elect people that will abide by the Constitution,and do only what the constitution says they can do.

Now, getting back to your original question....

You mean the one about supporting the impeachment of Bush,because its constitutional,and not supporting the impeachment of Clinton?

No. Try again.

MM, you're not making a whole lot of sense on this Clinton impeachment question.

You said that as long as they followed the Consititution, you were all right with even though it was a big waste of time and effort.

MM, that position would only make sense if the House were Constitutionally compelled to impeach Clinton. If there was no way to follow the Constitution and NOT impeach Clinton whether they wanted to or not, then I could see your point.

But that is not the case. The House had the choice to impeach or not to impeach-both would have been following the Constitution.

Since you made clear you felt that the impeachment was a big waste of time, it stands to reason that the House did their jobs badly. Because they consititutionally could have chosen NOT to undertake a big waste of time, and instead they did so.

So how can you be all right that?

Oh this should be good!

kelticw hit it right on the head.

I am NOT alright with the waste of time and money,let me say that right up front.
But,the house did exactly what the constitution requires.
They looked at the evidence and they had to make a choice.
Personally,I think it was the wrong choice,but under the constitution it was a choice.
They did exactly what the constitution allows them to do.
Fortunately,the Senate wasnt that gullible,and they corrected the mistake.
Again,thats exactly how the Constitution says things should be.

Now,IF Bush is impeached,then the same process will apply.
The house will have to look at the evidence and make a choice.
I am not going to presume to say what they will do,because I dont know.
But again,the choice they make will be according to the constitution.
The choice they make will be either to impeach,or not to.

The constitution does not say that they must make the right choice,it only lays out WHEN the choice must be made,and for what reasons.

Yes,the house did their jobs badly.
If they had done it right,there would have been no impeachment of Clinton.
But,that does not negate the fact that what they did was constitutional,and that they did exactly what the constitution says they can do.

Thats why I said earlier,and will say again that as long as they stay within the limits of the constitution,then I cant complain to much.
I may disagree with what they are doing,or the decision they make,but as long as its Constitutionally correct I will accept their actions.
Of Course,that does not mean that I wont try to get them to reverse themselves.
Thats within my rights according to the Constitution also.

Lewis Lapham has written that with all the Federal Regulations on the books, any modern President could be found to violate at least one of them and grounds for impeachmnet could be justified if the political will is present.

After all the discussion and explanation that impeachment is, indeed, a political act, MM still doesn't grasp the concept. There is absolutely nothing The Constition that prevents the House from impeaching at will. But OTOH, there is absolutely nothing in The Constitution that requires The House to impeach simply because a president may have violated one of the kazillion Federal Statutes. In Clinton's case, he was fully exonerated. So "the jury" decided there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify the "indictment."

MMs rationalizations make no sense and exposes an appallling ignorance of how our political system is supposed to work.

Clinton WAS exonerated, as OJ was.

And then, it was nice to see OJ lose the civil trial, and for Clinton to lose his law license. Some things just make sense.

Pepple like paull still don't get it! He can't seem to balance the difference between the "crime" of Clinton and the "crime" of OJ. Hopeless.

Roxxanne,
Let me make this as simple as possible for you.
I will use small words so you can understand,ok.

I dont care what the Congress does,as long as they dont violate the Constitution doing it.
If they want to impeach a President for political reasons,let them.
As you said,nothing says they cant.

If they decide NOT to impeach the President,thats fine also.
Nothing says they have to impeach him.

As long as they dont violate the limits set upon them by the Constitution,they can do whatever they want.
Its when they ignore those limits that I object.
Of course,as an American citizen,I have the right to complain about the decisions they make when I disagree with them,but as long as they stay within the Constitution while serving in their official capacity,they can do whatever they like.

Does that make it easy for you to understand?
Do you need more clarification?

The big 64 million dollar question is whether anything will come out of their "investigation."


Ethics Panel Starts 3 Probes
Ney, Jefferson And Cunningham Cases End Hiatus

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006; Page A01

After 16 months of inactivity and partisan infighting, the House ethics committee launched investigations last night into bribery allegations against Reps. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and William Jefferson (D-La.) and a separate inquiry into the widening scandal surrounding former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

The committee said it would have ordered another investigation, into the overseas trips of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), had the once-powerful lawmaker not announced that he will resign from the House on June 9.

'Duke' Cunningham Scandal

Read Post coverage of the scandal surrounding the bribery charges against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

* Prostitution Alleged In Cunningham Case
* Pentagon Orders Investigation Of Cunningham's MZM Earmark
* Maximum Sentence Urged for Cunningham
* Cunningham's Enablers
* Prosecutors Urge 10-Year Sentence for Cunningham

Special Report
The Jack Abramoff Story

Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that required him to provide evidence about members of Congress.

• Abramoff Gets Minimum Sentence (March 29, 2006)
• Abramoff Pleads Guilty (Jan. 4, 2006)
• Fast Rise, Steep Fall (Dec. 29, 2005)
• Stacking the Deck (Oct. 16, 2005)


The inquiries by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is formally known, come after the Justice Department intensified corruption investigations of Ney and Jefferson, and after Cunningham pleaded guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes and was sent to prison.

But as those and other scandals were unfolding, the ethics committee sat on the sidelines while Republicans and Democrats blamed each other for grinding the ethics process to a halt. Democrats said GOP leaders had changed the rules unfairly to thwart investigations that could have negative ramifications for the party. Republicans charged that the Democrats were dragging their feet on the panel's reorganization to bolster their accusations of a coverup.

That logjam was broken last month when Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the committee's ranking Democrat, was forced to leave the panel amid accusations that he used his congressional position to funnel money to his own home-state foundations, possibly enriching himself.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi named a fellow Californian and committee veteran, Howard L. Berman, to take the top slot. Berman quickly joined with the committee chairman, Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), to get the panel moving again.

Responding to last night's developments, Ney said in a statement: "For the last 15 months, all I have asked for is an opportunity to have the facts surrounding the Abramoff matter to be reviewed by the appropriate investigative bodies in order to have this matter addressed once and for all. Now that the Committee has been constituted, I am pleased that my request has been heard."

Robert P. Trout, an attorney for Jefferson, said in a statement, "This action is hardly surprising given recent media reports and editorial comment." He added that the congressman believes that "everyone should take a deep breath and allow the judicial process to work."

Trout also said that Jefferson has "never accepted payment from anyone for the performance of any act or duty for which he was elected."

The Cunningham inquiry could hold the most political significance, because it will look into activities that could snare lawmakers who so far have escaped official scrutiny. Cunningham confessed to accepting millions of dollars in bribes from two Southern California defense contractors, Mitchell J. Wade and Brent R. Wilkes.

The case took a new twist last month when Wade told prosecutors that Wilkes had an arrangement with a limousine company, which in turn had an arrangement with at least one escort service, one source said. Wade said limos would pick up Cunningham and a prostitute and bring them to suites that Wilkes maintained at the Watergate and Westin Grande hotels in Washington. Federal investigators are looking into whether other lawmakers also took part.

"There have been continuing reports regarding [Cunningham's] conduct, the conduct of his alleged co-conspirators, and others, that, if true, raise serious issues concerning violations of House Rules and standards," a joint statement from Hastings and Berman said. "Most recently, reports have suggested that federal officials are investigating whether Representative Cunningham and possibly other Members and staff were provided hotel rooms, limousines, and other services in exchange for performing official acts."

Hastings and Berman added that other investigations could be launched against other lawmakers or staff members.

The committee's announcements mark one more setback for Ney and Jefferson. Ney has been a primary target of the federal investigation into the activities of former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In four separate guilty pleas, Abramoff, former DeLay deputy chief of staff Tony C. Rudy, former DeLay press secretary Michael Scanlon and former Ney chief of staff Neil G. Volz all said Ney had used his position to grant favors to the Abramoff lobbying team in exchange for gifts, including a lavish golf trip to Scotland, the use of luxury boxes at sporting events, and concerts and meals.

An ethics investigative subcommittee, headed by Reps. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.) and Gene Green (D-Tex.), plans its own inquiry.

For Jefferson, the ethics inquiry is likely to be the least of his concerns. Last week, the congressman indicated his indictment was imminent when he told his New Orleans constituents he would not resign amid worsening bribery charges.

Last week, Kentucky businessman Vernon L. Jackson pleaded guilty to bribery, saying Jefferson began in 2000 to help him market his telecommunications firm, iGate Inc., to federal contractors and African countries. In 2001, Jefferson allegedly told Jackson that he would not continue these promotional efforts without payments to a company belonging to Jefferson's family.

Staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum contributed to this report.

Looks so much like a political move/ploy to save their party from falling completely off from the radar screen.

Jeb, I am a published writer. You only make yourself look like a fool by trying to talk down to someone like me. This is the last time I ever reply to your maniacal drool.

Bye!

...and mysteryman wins the A2K lottery! Grats, man!

I don't really think you believe that.

You wouldn't be on these political forums if you were so disconnected from the actions of your government that you truly don't mind what they do as long as they don't violate the Constitution.

What if they pass a law tomorrow saying that everyone at noon on Monday has to go out onto the sidewalk and hop on one leg for five minutes, under penalty of imprisonment. Would that be okay with you? It would be constitutional.

Would you be all right with that?

It would be ok with me. I would love to watch a few of the women I work with hop around on one leg for 5 minutes. And we all can probably use the exercise, right?

The House is now considering legislation to make marriage illegal for homosexuals. As if we didn't have "real" problems in this country that they could be working on.

They're proposing a constitutional amendment. It will never pass and they know it. It's all for show for the 2006 elections.