Page 10 of 10

Posted: 06-16-2008 12:56 AM
by lazarus long
i'll write, that's for sure!
no problem on that clarification, and have a good night's sleep (it's a rerun on c2c anyway).

Posted: 06-16-2008 01:00 AM
by SETIsLady
lazarus long wrote: i'll write, that's for sure!
no problem on that clarification, and have a good night's sleep (it's a rerun on c2c anyway).
Cool thanks LL much appreciated :) Hope you sleep well too !!

Posted: 06-16-2008 01:04 AM
by lazarus long
SETIsLady wrote: Cool thanks LL much appreciated :) Hope you sleep well too !!

shoot, i'll be up for hours yet. apparently, i'm part vampire bat. i appreciate the sentiment, though. it's nice that you and i can have a pleasant exchange after what we've been through.
once again, sweet dreams.

Posted: 06-16-2008 01:14 AM
by SETIsLady
lazarus long wrote: it's nice that you and i can have a pleasant exchange after what we've been through.
once again, sweet dreams.
Yes, I hope we can move forward and put the past behind us, I am glad you are here and hope you will post up more often :)

Posted: 06-18-2008 10:36 AM
by SquidInk
lazarus long wrote: i think that you might have misunderstood squidink (maybe, if i'm wrong, let me know).


My point is this: On Nov 17, 2005, upon the pardoning of Scooter Libby, every member of the House of Representatives who did not bring forth articles (and none did) is guilty of discarding their oaths, and betraying the People.

That pardon was specifically noted, by Madison, as grounds for impeachment...

"...George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.”

James Madison responded:

'If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty'…"


So, to bring the articles now, or to "sign on", should not save Wexler - or any of them - from the harsh hand of judgement. The House clearly had something to gain by delay...

Posted: 06-18-2008 03:55 PM
by Iris
lazarus long wrote: shoot, i'll be up for hours yet. apparently, i'm part vampire bat.


I know that feeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sl ... e_syndrome

Posted: 06-21-2008 07:05 AM
by whskyfan
Kucinich has a petition in support of impeachment. You can sign it here

Posted: 06-21-2008 02:46 PM
by lazarus long
SquidInk wrote: My point is this: On Nov 17, 2005, upon the pardoning of Scooter Libby, every member of the House of Representatives who did not bring forth articles (and none did) is guilty of discarding their oaths, and betraying the People.

That pardon was specifically noted, by Madison, as grounds for impeachment...

"...George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.”

James Madison responded:

'If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty'…"


So, to bring the articles now, or to "sign on", should not save Wexler - or any of them - from the harsh hand of judgement. The House clearly had something to gain by delay...

thanks for the clarification squid! i wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, i just wanted to defuse a situation that i thought i saw brewing from a simple misunderstanding. i always enjoy your posts.

Posted: 06-21-2008 06:28 PM
by SquidInk
lazarus long wrote: thanks for the clarification squid! i wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, i just wanted to defuse a situation that i thought i saw brewing from a simple misunderstanding. i always enjoy your posts.


I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I hope SETIsLady can forgive me! :D

Posted: 11-16-2011 10:24 AM
by SquidInk
Now as seen through the lens of history... from Wikipedia:
On May 10, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicated she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table", reiterating this phrase on November 8, 2006.[10][11] In July 2007, Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.[12]

[...]


"We're hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent, respectively, for impeachment, that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not even amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters."

[...]

On March 21, 2006 the New Mexico Democratic Party, at a convention in Albuquerque, adopted a plank to their platform saying “the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.”[20]

On March 24, 2007, the Vermont Democratic State Committee voted to support JRH 15, a state legislative resolution supporting impeachment, calling for its passage as "appropriate action."[21]

On January 2, 2008, Betty Hall (D), an 87-year-old, fourteen-term State Representative, introduced New Hampshire House Resolution 24 in the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.[22] The resolution was "petitioning Congress to commence impeachment procedures" against Bush and Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors", including domestic spying, illegal detentions, signing statements, electioneering, the breaking of international treaties, and war crimes.[23] The bill further asserted that "section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice states that an impeachment may be set in motion by the United States House of Representatives by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state".[23]

On February 20, 2008, the bill was ruled "Inexpedient to Legislate" to pass by a 10 to 5 vote within committee, which passed the resolution on to the full House for a vote.[22] The bill was tabled in the New Hampshire House of Representatives on April 16, 2008.[22] After three efforts to have the bill removed from the table were unsuccessful, it died on the table on September 24, 2008.[22] - source


Party politics aside, *if* upwards of 50% of the population wanted to proceed with impeachment, and if the statement by Pelosi, roughly quoted above, is true - then I think we have a spectacular illustration of just how broken the system is.

'Impeachment' is not 'conviction', it's a hearing of the facts, so proper conclusions can be reached. One possible conclusion is 'innocent'. If we have entire branches of government who are willing to actively suppress that kind of proceeding when there is compelling 'probable cause', then we're not living in the nation we think we're living in (to put it nicely).