The Impeachment Meme

Allah posts video of a peace please! group calling for Patty Murray of Washington State to be arrested for war crimes, because she hasn't done enough to stop the war. The problem with this below is that they don't need a chain reaction.

The Sheehan crowd’s energized because a bill calling for Bush’s impeachment has been introduced in the Washington state senate and will be given a public hearing on Thursday. The moonbats are expected to be out in force to pressure the legislature into passing it and hopefully start a chain reaction in other blue states cuminating(sic) in the mother of all political headaches for Nancy Pelosi (and Hillary, Obama, etc).

As I posted in January with regard to Keith Ellison, who launched a similar bill as a state representative - and could now receive it as he's in the House: they only need one state resolution and one member of the House to accept it. They'd likely claim they were dragged into it by the Jefferson Manual. A chain reaction would exert more political pressure, but it isn't required.

This is an accepted form of launching Impeachment proceedings, per The Jefferson Manual. A Representative from the state that sends up such a resolution to Congress only need acknowledge its receipt to launch impeachment proceedings.

In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. (here)

The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state's petition. Then impeachment begins. (here)

Back to a quote from AM:

Last year the state legislatures of California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Vermont introduced but did not pass resolutions to send impeachment to the U.S. House.

Any of those resolutions need only be re-introduced and passed in a new state legislative year. So, while the same might be said for a number Democrats in Congress, as Bush continues to try and lead the fight in the GWOT, ironically, it could be the first Muslim elected to Congress who used a Koran once owned, but ultimately repudiated, by Thomas Jefferson in his private swearing in ceremony, who ends up most uniquely positioned to tie Bush and his administration up in the legal wrangling such a process would necessitate.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Wow. Impeachment bills introduced in five different states. That's alot of impeachment bills. How many states moved to impeach Clinton again? I can't remember. Was it a number greater than one?

[Hard Right]

The difference is that Bill was guilty. Bush won't be impeached, but keep drooling lefties.

[IMamazed]

To all you leftists: How does it feel to require America to lose a war for you to win? Incredible that you can't remember this from the Vietnam days. How many presidential elections have you won since you worked for this country's defeat back then?

[Legalize]

"The difference is that Bill was guilty."

Of? There was no finding of "guilt." But keep pretending you have a clue; it's cute.

[Zifnab]

"How does it feel to require America to lose a war for you to win?"

Just one war? You're forgetting how Democrats pulled all our troops out of Afganistan and let the Taliban resurge uncontested. Then you're forgetting how the Democrats let bin Laden get away to Pakistan. Also, you're forgetting how the Democrats controlled the Presidency and the Congress for the past six years.

Man, way to lose the war, guys. If this was WWII, we'd have been out of there a year ago, under a strong, capable Republican President with a heavy Republican majority in Congress. Oh. Wait.

Strong. Smrt.

[Dan Riehl]

There was no finding of "guilt."

LOL Sure there was, guilty of perjury in a Federal Court. That's why they ranked his law license.

[BobInStamford]

Funny how only Redneckistan'still supports Bush. They must know stuff that the rest of us with teeth dont. Stay the course, heros!!!

[Legalize]

"LOL Sure there was, guilty of perjury in a Federal Court. That's why they ranked his law license."

No, professor Riehl. Clinton lost his license for lying about immaterial facts in a civil deposition. It ain't perjury, and it ain't a crime. It's an ethical violation, for which he also paid a penalty to the Arkansas Bar Association as well. But feel free to keep making stuff up as you go along.

[Hard Right]

Legalize, you are an idiot. The only reason he wasn't brought up on perjury was because the judge ruled his lie wasn't material to the case. Again, you haven't a clue about which you speak. Typical leftist. A lack of knowledge doesn't keep you from shooting your mouth off.

[Zifnab]

"The only reason he wasn't brought up on perjury was because the judge ruled his lie wasn't material to the case."

It wasn't material to the case, you say, Hard Right? But... but then why was he asked it? Why on earth would someone get our President in the witness chair and then grill him about facts immaterial to the case?

I can only hope that Dear President Bush is never called to the witness chair and put under oath. Not that he has to or anything. He's the President.

[Amelia]

This is a total farce and a distraction from far more important things but the good that might come out of this may well be the chance to put to an end the false claims of "Bush Lied" and settle once and for all that issue. The facts, more coming out all along, are highly in his favor.

But wanna bet they don't really want what Sandy Berger was sneaking out of the National Archives ever coming to light as it surely would in this kind of an investigation. Clinton has far more to hide than Bush in regard to Iraq, terrorism and his failure to meet and deal with both.

It's not Bush demanding things be taken out of documentaries as did Clinton the one by ABC on events leading up to 9-11.

[Hard Right]

Zifnab, don't ask me why it was asked or why the judge saw it as immaterial. I wondered the same thing. Had the judge ruled otherwise, Bill would have been brought up on Perjury.

[Mark J.]

"Just one war? You're forgetting how Democrats pulled all our troops out of Afganistan and let the Taliban resurge uncontested. Then you're forgetting how the Democrats let bin Laden get away to Pakistan. Also, you're forgetting how the Democrats controlled the Presidency and the Congress for the past six years.

Man, way to lose the war, guys. If this was WWII, we'd have been out of there a year ago, under a strong, capable Republican President with a heavy Republican majority in Congress. Oh. Wait.

Strong. Smrt."

Ummm, nice try, Zifnab, but no cooperatively-grown Cuban cigar for you.
Here's your problem as I see it: you're either unable, or unwilling, to understand that we're at war with a fanatical, pre-industrial death cult whose adherents genuinely believe they can get closer to their god by sawing off your head with a rusty knife. The sooner you grasp this concept, the sooner you will reenter Blessed Reality.

[Zifnab]

"Here's your problem as I see it: you're either unable, or unwilling, to understand that we're at war with a fanatical, pre-industrial death cult whose adherents genuinely believe they can get closer to their god by sawing off your head with a rusty knife."

That fails to explain why the current administration has been so completely unsuccessful in fending off said death-cult.

Seriously, they've got knives of the rusty, pre-industrial variety. We've got supercomputers, stealth bombers, and trillions of dollars in capital.

How is it that Clinton won Kosovo, but Bush can't win Iraq? I'm just saying, if you're going to go to war, you better have a Democrat in office. Nixon sat around Vietnam bleeding to death for five years. Reagen lost in Central America. Bush 41 stalled in Kuwait. And Bush 43 is going to lose both Afganistan AND Iraq, if he doesn't go for a hat-trick with a failed invasion of Iran. It's almost laughable how bad the Republican war record actually stands. I'm just glad the US Military is finally waking up. How many Iraq-War veterans were running under the big R in '06?

[Legalize]

"Legalize, you are an idiot. The only reason he wasn't brought up on perjury was because the judge ruled his lie wasn't material to the case. Again, you haven't a clue about which you speak. Typical leftist. A lack of knowledge doesn't keep you from shooting your mouth off.

Gee, detective. You said Bill was "guilty;" Riehl said he was guilty of perjury. Both statements are patently false, genius. I corrected the both of you, and you are BOTH too much of a coward to admit that you were wrong. He wasn't found "guilty" of perjury, and he wasn't even charged with perjury. Additionally, he was never threatened with being charged with perjury; he was threatened with being found in civil contempt, which is ALSO not a crime, and nothing he COULD HAVE BEEN found "guilty" of, as by definition, one is not found "guilty" of civil offenses; one is found "liable" for civil offenses. "Guilt" implicates (1) a criminal act, and (2) the requisite mens rea, as defined by statute or common law. Neither was ever established in a court of law.

"The Judge" in the Jones case, of whom i assume you speak (because you speak in such ignorant generalities), didn't even discuss the matter of perjury; she dismissed the sexual harrassment case against Clinton because Jones couldn't make out a prima facie case of sexual harrassment. Clinton worked out a deal with White Water prosecutors where he would be disbarred for 5 years and pay a fine, instead of being CHARGED with criminal perjury.

So, next time you feel compelled to opine about the "lack of knowledge" of others, it might be prudent to make sure that your statements, you know, accurately reflect the historical record.

Otherwise, we'll just look forward to more of your blathering.

[Hard Right]

You sure used a lot of words to say nothing legalize. BILL WAS GUILTY OF LYING. That is why he was impeached.
Such a simple concept and yet it escapes someone like you who consideres themselves so smart. You're not an idiot, you're retarded.

[Legalize]

Hey, when proven wrong (2 or 3 times on the same topic), move the goal posts!! Again, try being correct before accusing anyone of being "an idiot" or "retarded." For the 3d or 4th time: Bill Clinton was never found "guilty" of anything. If he had been, he would have either been convicted in the Senate or in a criminal proceeding.

No, dipstick; I used very few words to repeatedly demonstrate that you and Riehl don't know what the hell you are talking about vis a vis this matter - other than recyling the same old GOP talking points over and over. It's up to you; I can go back again and point out where you were both wrong, but I know you have to get ready for your shift at Pizza Hut.

[Zifnab]

Don't worry, Legal. These guys will bark this shit to the moon till Doomsday. Just be glad they're not lawyers. Scratch that. Just be glad they're not your lawyers. They'd be laughed out of court.

[Legalize]

Oh, I wish they WERE the lawyers I have to deal with every day. I'd love to be able to put forth a supportable argument only to be met with: "you're an idiot," or "LOL!!!111one!!" or some transparent game of move-the-goal-posts. However, I would feel badly for their clients who would be stuck with grossly innefective and incompetent counsel, which is inconsistent with consitutional due process. They'd be better off with first-year law students or hell, even Hurd Rite's co-workers at KFC for that matter.

[Hard Right]

Legalize, you should sue whatever school you went to. You've hand your ass handed to you by a non-lawyer. "I meant the legal definition" (roll eyes). Suuuure you did. Obviously you don't have to be very smart to be a lawyer.

Zifnab, same for you. You've been outdebated at every turn, but have yet to understand that's the case.
So much for the "elites". Buwahahahahahahaha.

[SDN]

Except that Bill DIDN'T win in Bosnia (or Haiti). We still have troops there; they're still suffering casualties, and the ethnic cleansing continues.

[Legalize]

Lord.

Hard Right: "The difference is that Bill was guilty."

Me: "Of? There was no finding of 'guilt.'"

Riehl:"LOL Sure there was, guilty of perjury in a Federal Court. That's why they ranked his law license."

Me: "Clinton lost his license for lying about immaterial facts in a civil deposition. It ain't perjury, and it ain't a crime."

Riehl: *crickets*

Limp Right: "The only reason he wasn't brought up on perjury was because the judge ruled his lie wasn't material to the case."

Me (paraphrasing): No. The Judge in the Jones case almost charged Clinton with civil contempt, but did not; civil contempt is not a crime. She did not *actually* or *almost* rule on anything approaching a perjury charge. Additionally, it was a deal that Clinton cut with the White Water prosecution to avoid criminal perjury charges by eating a five year disbarment, and paying a substantial fine.

Riehl: *more crickets*

Limp Wrong: "BILL WAS GUILTY OF LYING. That is why he was impeached."

Me (paraphasing): After I disposed of your original "argument," and Riehl's laughably false statement (by addressing him, not YOU) you decided to move the proverbial goal posts in an attempt to save face instead of admitting that you were incorrect and moving on - like all cowards do when they lose an argument.

Riehl: *crickets* and *dog barking in the night*

Limp Riehlly Wrong (paraphasing): "OMGz!!!!11111on3 libz r s0 st000pid LOL!!!!!!one11."

[Zifnab]

"Zifnab, same for you. You've been outdebated at every turn, but have yet to understand that's the case."

My god, you're right. If only your rhetorical genius could be nationally televised, everyone would stop being such moonbats and we'd all go vote Republican again. With debating strategies such as repeating yourself ad nausuem, ducking reality, and declaring yourself victorious, you've really turned a corner in the war of words. You've done for conversation what Donald Rumsfeld did for land wars in Asia.

You're a great American, Hard Right.

Also, SDN, as of March 2003:
SOMALIA
1992-93
DURATION IN DAYS: 153
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 26,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 29
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 43

KOSOVO
1999
DURATION IN DAYS: 77
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2

AFGHANISTAN
2001-2003
DURATION IN DAYS: 540 (ongoing)
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 9,000*
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 21
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 74

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030330-public-opinion01.htm

Yup, that was an absolute slaughterhouse for US soldiers in Kosovo. And we lose our good men and women there to this day. Or... wait. We don't.

I'd call Kosovo a victory in my book. Hell, if you can get Iraq to look like Kosovo by the end of 2007, I will vote Republican to my dieing day. Good luck with that.

3 more Friedmans to victory!

[Zifnab]

hehe. Now that I look at these numbers, here's the real joke.
Reagen lost more US soldiers in Grenada than Clinton lost in Kosovo. And in the Persian Gulf War, Daddy Bush lost almost 1/10th the soldiers his son has managed to kill, and he was in and out in 84 days. Ah, for the days of the sane but sloppy Republican party. Oh well.

[tk]

You people seem to very passionate about the past. Lets look to the future. We all have ideas so lets discuss them. An we even might learn from each other.

[RedinMO]

Zifnab, now I'm always amazed at the idiocy and simplicity of liberals. You keep comparing a war in Iraq, pop. 50 Million, with Kosovo, pop. 500,000? Are you really that stupid, or is it just today? Of course Kosovo was an easier military operation. But you are wrong about the lack of troops. My Guard unit was over there in 2003, 'keeping the peace'. There are lots of other U.N. troops as well.

[RedinMO]

Oops, Iraq is 26 Million. The point is the same.

[inmypajamas]

Bottom line: Bill Clinton was guilty of lying, which was why he copped a deal with Starr's successor and had his law license yanked, was barred from practicing law in his state and was barred from arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court. And he only waited eight months to admit it, dragging the country through endless petty bickering to protect his own pampered and selfish behind.

Yup, just the kind of smart, ethical lawyer I want representing me in a court of law. Or leading the country.

Clinton defenders just have to twist themselves into pretzels around the reality that Clinton lied, obstructed justice and was actually, genuinely impeached. And they think that they and their obsessive, hate-driven pursuit of impeachment for Bush are somehow different from those obsessive, hate-driven wingers that drove Clinton's impeachment. Twist away, folks.