More reasons for impeachment, pick one!

[GrowRebel]

[URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html"]HERE IS THE FELONY BUSH IS GUILTY OF [/URL]
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

.... another of many crimes committed by the illegitimate bush regime .... there is more than enough ground to impeach these war criminal ....

 

[ViRedd]

So, assuming that you're right, GrowRebel, exactly HOW is Bush "impeding, obstructing or influencing" the administration of an investigation?

Vi

 

[medicineman]

So, assuming that you're right, GrowRebel, exactly HOW is Bush "impeding, obstructing or influencing" the administration of an investigation?

Vi

All you do is ask stupid questions. I should have figured you out way before I did. Your plan is to answer a question with a question and never actually become a positive part of the conversation. As for your "question", By claiming executive priveledge and stopping his aides and counsels from testifying, refusing subpoenas, and generally lying like the asshole he is.

 

[420worshipper]

The evidence was obviousley either wrong or trumped up by the Al-CIA-Da. I'll go with the latter. Maybe your right, maybe he is just an idiot that goes off of what people tell him, but I highly doubt it. There is another agenda at work here, but nothing will be done about it and we will get yet another corrupt president like Rudy Guilliani.

Every President we have ever had goes on the information given to him by his advisors. They are made up of the following:

Cabinet Members
Head of CIA
Head of FBI
Head of NSA
Secretary of State
Attorney General
Chief of Staff
Asst. Chief of Staff
Communications Director
Asst. Comm. Director
Press Secretary

Do you really think that a sitting president has the time to read each and every piece of paper, look over every piece of evidence, etc, before making his own decisions? He rely's on all of the above people acting as advisors to help him in the decision process. And the president usually goes with the advice given to him by his advisors.

 

[ViRedd]

Med & GrowRebel ...

Please read 420's above post 500 times, then go to the back of the class.

Vi

 

[420worshipper]

[URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html"]HERE IS THE FELONY BUSH IS GUILTY OF [/URL]
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

.... another of many crimes committed by the illegitimate bush regime .... there is more than enough ground to impeach these war criminal ....

So when did a court of law convict Bush for the above things you say he is guilty of? See in this country you are innocent until either a judge or jury convicts you. Also if you are stupid enough to plead guilty without consulting a lawyer. And you keep calling it the illegitimate Bush regime. Why? Because he did not win the popular vote in 2000? Well for your information the US Constitution > Article 2 states you need 270 electorial college votes to be president. Nothing in the constitution states you need popular vote to be president. And speaking of that here is a list of all presidents that won by getting 270+ e.c. votes and not popular votes.

1789 George Washington 69 e.c. votes / No popular votes
He was the only president in our history that was selected

1824 John Quincy Adams 261 e.c. votes / -38149 popular votes less
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes 185 e.c. votes / -254235 popular votes less
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233 e.c. votes / -90596 popular votes less
1996 William J. Clinton 379 e.c. votes / -77396 popular votes less

So it seems there was more than one president in our history that won on e.c. votes and not popular votes. Back in '96 I didn't see Bob Dole crying to the U.S. Supreme Court that President Clinton didn't win popular votes so he shouldn't be president. Thats because Dole, unlike Gore, new the constitutional process of electing a president and was willing to live with the results like a gracious loser and not cry about it like some 2 year old child who don't get their way.


<quote>
Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
</quote>

Above quote taken from here...
NARA | Federal Register | U. S. Electoral College

You should read these two books and they will help you on the process of electing a president.

[SIZE=+0]After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College. Edited by Walter Berns. Rev. enl. ed. Washington: AEI Press, 1992. xiv, 101 p. Includes bibliographical references. AEI studies ; 542. ISBN: 0844738034; 0844738026 (pbk). LCCN: 91032732. JK529 .A68 1992[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President. Edited by Walter Berns. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, c1983. AEI Studies 395. 39 p. LCCN: 83015535. JK529 .A68 1983[/SIZE]

 

[ViRedd]

420 ...

If you keep confusing GrowRebel with facts, his head is gonna explode!

Vi

 

[medicineman]

Every President we have ever had goes on the information given to him by his advisors. They are made up of the following:

Cabinet Members
Head of CIA
Head of FBI
Head of NSA
Secretary of State
Attorney General
Chief of Staff
Asst. Chief of Staff
Communications Director
Asst. Comm. Director
Press Secretary

Do you really think that a sitting president has the time to read each and every piece of paper, look over every piece of evidence, etc, before making his own decisions? He rely's on all of the above people acting as advisors to help him in the decision process. And the president usually goes with the advice given to him by his advisors.

Uhhhhh, Have you heard the phrase "the buck stops here"? Whether he uses his advisorss or not he is still ultimately responsible for his actions. So if your friend said you should kill his wife and you got caught, you should be innocent because he told you to do it. Same principle, and the advisor should be held culpable as well. Hey you knuckleheads, it's not rocket science here, the man is guilty of many infractions against the constitution he has sworn to uphold. I have named them. what don't you see? You are in absoluter denial. When Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob I'll bet you were all for that silly escapade, but when someone wants to impeach your guys for lying about reasons to go to war and thereby killing hundreds of thousands of people, it's unreasonable, give me a fucking break!

 

[420worshipper]

Well if that is the case then why was Col. Oliver North tried and convicted of something President Reagan ordered a general who ordered North to do. Also, take into account the 33 people from the Clinton White House that were convicted and sentenced to prison for things the President ordered them to do. And it really pissed me off to see them try and go after Clinton over a blowjob. But the reason they tried to impeach him is he lied to a Federal Grand Jury. I'd like to see anyone but the President lie to a grand jury of any kind and not go to jail. See I worked on his election and re-election campaigns. And I never said Bush was my guy. But I can't sit by and let people ignorant of the constitutional process of electing a president sit there and say stupid things about it. The facts need to be brought to attention. And that is what I was doing. Now if you have physical proof other than what you heard some newscaster report on, that he violated the constitution then present it to the proper authorities. Now since when has there been hundreds of thousands of people killed in any war during the past 8 years?
And besides an impeachment process would only take out the president. Then the vice-president would assume the position. So to take out both you would have to allow the vice-president to take the office of president and then you would have to start the impeachment process over with evidence only linked to the vice-president and could not use anything used in impeaching the president unless the vice-president was present at the time the crime was committed. But since the vice-presidents office is down the street from the presidents, its doubtful that he was there for every single meeting, memo, or phone call. See the vice-president has duties he has to attend to as well. And like everyone else in the administration below the president, they all serve at the pleasure of the president.

 

[Erniedytn]

No matter how you look at it, or what "evidence" you present, the fact still remains that Bush stold the election and went to war under false pretences....period.

 

[Erniedytn]

Uhhhhh, Have you heard the phrase "the buck stops here"? Whether he uses his advisorss or not he is still ultimately responsible for his actions. So if your friend said you should kill his wife and you got caught, you should be innocent because he told you to do it. Same principle, and the advisor should be held culpable as well. Hey you knuckleheads, it's not rocket science here, the man is guilty of many infractions against the constitution he has sworn to uphold. I have named them. what don't you see? You are in absoluter denial. When Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob I'll bet you were all for that silly escapade, but when someone wants to impeach your guys for lying about reasons to go to war and thereby killing hundreds of thousands of people, it's unreasonable, give me a fucking break!

My thought exactly.... like some fucking kindergarteners pointing fingers...."he told me to do it"

 

[Gygax1974]

Hey you guys are right Bush is a great president and we are far better off since he got in office. Thank god there's a war in Iraq, what else were we going to do with our money. And all the senseless killing is great for morale. I wish we could vote him in a third time that would be awesome.....

 

[Erniedytn]

I wish we could vote him in a third time that would be awesome.....

I wouldn't put it past that crooked fucker to try.

 

[ViRedd]

Well if that is the case then why was Col. Oliver North tried and convicted of something President Reagan ordered a general who ordered North to do. Also, take into account the 33 people from the Clinton White House that were convicted and sentenced to prison for things the President ordered them to do. And it really pissed me off to see them try and go after Clinton over a blowjob. But the reason they tried to impeach him is he lied to a Federal Grand Jury. I'd like to see anyone but the President lie to a grand jury of any kind and not go to jail. See I worked on his election and re-election campaigns. And I never said Bush was my guy. But I can't sit by and let people ignorant of the constitutional process of electing a president sit there and say stupid things about it. The facts need to be brought to attention. And that is what I was doing. Now if you have physical proof other than what you heard some newscaster report on, that he violated the constitution then present it to the proper authorities. Now since when has there been hundreds of thousands of people killed in any war during the past 8 years?
And besides an impeachment process would only take out the president. Then the vice-president would assume the position. So to take out both you would have to allow the vice-president to take the office of president and then you would have to start the impeachment process over with evidence only linked to the vice-president and could not use anything used in impeaching the president unless the vice-president was present at the time the crime was committed. But since the vice-presidents office is down the street from the presidents, its doubtful that he was there for every single meeting, memo, or phone call. See the vice-president has duties he has to attend to as well. And like everyone else in the administration below the president, they all serve at the pleasure of the president.

And that's the whole enchilada in a nut-shell.

Vi

 

[Erniedytn]

No matter how you look at it, or what "evidence" you present, the fact still remains that Bush stold the election and went to war under false pretences....period.

Theres the "Fact".