View Full Version : Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles
alkemical
06-10-2008, 03:29 PM
Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_presents_Bush_impeachment_articles_0609.h tml)
An Ohio Democratic lawmaker and former presidential candidate has presented articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush to Congress.
Thirty-five articles were presented by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to the House of Representatives late Monday evening, airing live on C-SPAN.
"The House is not in order," said Kucinich to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon which Pelosi pounded her gavel.
"Resolved," Kucinich then began, "that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. ...
"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power..."
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: "Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."
On several occasions, Kucinich referenced RAW STORY and its noted investigative news chief, Larisa Alexandrovna, as source material for the articles. Two of the RAW STORY pieces Kucinich mentioned are viewable here and here.
Kucinich, a 2004 and 2008 Democratic candidate for the White House, abandoned a prior attempt to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush in January of this year.
In April of 2007, Kucinich presented impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, but the effort went nowhere. Kucinich exclaimed that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."
Before leaving office in January 2007, then-Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney--currently a Green Party presidential candidate--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as her last act in Congress, but that effort also was fruitless.
Tuesday's follow-up story at this link: Mainstream media yawns as Kucinich offers impeachment.
Plus Impeachment resolution gains co-sponsor.
This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast June 9, 2008.
TailgateNut
06-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Hat's off! Go after the lying SOB and hang him out to dry. Nothing would be sweeter, even if it were to happen on his last day in office. Then drag the SOB to the courthouse an put him and his merry entourage on trial.
Dudeskey
06-10-2008, 03:37 PM
Even if it gets any mileage, its just in time for the next president to pardon Bu$hco™
just my pessimistic pov
TailgateNut
06-10-2008, 03:42 PM
**** pardons! Send the three headed monster (Bush, Cheney, Rove) to Gitmo!
Pointless political theatre.
Play2win
06-10-2008, 04:59 PM
**** pardons! Send the three headed monster (Bush, Cheney, Rove) to Gitmo!
That would have some much Irony that you could taste it...:~ohyah!:
Hotrod
06-10-2008, 05:02 PM
Pointless political theatre.
Exactly
More show boating by the YSLP :nono:
Spider
06-10-2008, 05:30 PM
Heard about this today , 4 years to late ........ but just in time for the elections ....
TheDave
06-10-2008, 06:12 PM
I wish it could go somewhere, but i doubt it. With Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" stance i have to assume that a handful of high ranking democrats knew more about these offenses than has been made public. With the election so close there is no way they are going to risk losing some very precious seats and possibly the presidency.
The entire group makes me sick....
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-10-2008, 06:22 PM
Hat's off! Go after the lying SOB and hang him out to dry. Nothing would be sweeter, even if it were to happen on his last day in office. Then drag the SOB to the courthouse an put him and his merry entourage on trial.
+1 :thumbsup:
It's good that someone like Dennis is there to remind us that this lying, sociopathic piece of sh*t is going to ride off into the sunset without being held accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors (and will probably have an airport named after him like the last two-term GOP crook.)
Rohirrim
06-10-2008, 06:40 PM
I can't imagine what Dennis the Menace is thinking. All Bush did was spread the lies that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis totally needlessly, bankrupt this country, destroy our military, and weaken us at home and abroad while pouring whatever resources are left into the pockets of his criminal cronies. That certainly doesn't rise to the criminal level of a blow job. That's the kind of discretion that makes our Congress the shining example of mankind that we expect it to be. Let's all be proud. Oh wait! Pelosi did say impeachment was off the table. There's some political courage for ya.
cutthemdown
06-10-2008, 07:17 PM
scratch him off Obama vp list
BroncoBuff
06-10-2008, 07:22 PM
Hat's off! Go after the lying SOB and hang him out to dry. Nothing would be sweeter, even if it were to happen on his last day in office. Then drag the SOB to the courthouse an put him and his merry entourage on trial.
Exactly ... it's never too late.
peacepipe
06-10-2008, 07:31 PM
Unfortunatly,a day late & a dollar short.
mhgaffney
06-10-2008, 07:40 PM
Go Dennis!
spdirty
06-10-2008, 07:55 PM
blah blah blah
BABronco
06-10-2008, 10:06 PM
This is definetly not his first time attempting this.
Dukes
06-10-2008, 10:52 PM
Sweet. Impeach Bush ASAP. I can't wait to see the kind of havoc Cheney can do for these last few months!
JCMElway
06-10-2008, 10:52 PM
Pointless political theatre.
Agreed.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-11-2008, 12:59 AM
I can't imagine what Dennis the Menace is thinking. All Bush did was spread the lies that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis totally needlessly, bankrupt this country, destroy our military, and weaken us at home and abroad while pouring whatever resources are left into the pockets of his criminal cronies. That certainly doesn't rise to the criminal level of a blow job. That's the kind of discretion that makes our Congress the shining example of mankind that we expect it to be. Let's all be proud. Oh wait! Pelosi did say impeachment was off the table. There's some political courage for ya.
Yep.
And the simpletons and sociopaths who defend the Kennebunkport Cowboy continue to wink at all of the above and talk sh*t like they occupy the moral high ground.
Pelosi should be asking "do you want fries with that?" - not holding a public office.
Talk about a totally worthless sack of dead weight.
SonOfLe-loLang
06-11-2008, 01:07 AM
Yep.
And the simpletons and sociopaths who defend the Kennebunkport Cowboy continue to wink at all of the above and talk sh*t like they occupy the moral high ground.
Pelosi should be asking "do you want fries with that?" - not holding a public office.
Talk about a totally worthless sack of dead weight.
I dunno, Pelosi picks her battles, sometimes she really impresses me (like with her stance on social security when the republicans tried to push for an unnecessary amendment to it), but sometimes she cowers. I'd like to see the liberal bulldog that she can be come out more.
24champ
06-11-2008, 01:15 AM
Pointless political theatre.
This has been going on for awhile, they won't get anything done...so yeah it's pointless.
BroncsRule
06-11-2008, 03:03 AM
I dunno, Pelosi picks her battles, sometimes she really impresses me (like with her stance on social security when the republicans tried to push for an unnecessary amendment to it), but sometimes she cowers. I'd like to see the liberal bulldog that she can be come out more.
As I understand it, the Dems are in a bind. Their hold on the House is tenuous at best. 35? 38? votes? And many of those Dems are in Repub districts. If they were to do something really radical, say - support the impeachment of the sitting Pres., well, they would most likely loose their seat.. The real reason "impeachment is off the table" is because the Dems would prefer retaining control of the House to having their revenge.
Hogan11
06-11-2008, 04:31 AM
I can respect this...that said, I've never been a fan of Kucinich's. His wife is hot tho....
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-11-2008, 05:35 AM
As I understand it, the Dems are in a bind. Their hold on the House is tenuous at best. 35? 38? votes? And many of those Dems are in Repub districts. If they were to do something really radical, say - support the impeachment of the sitting Pres., well, they would most likely loose their seat..
It's kind of hard to construe impeachment as "really radical" when you're talking about a *president whose disapproval numbers are worse than Nixon's during Watergate and whose frauds and felonies clearly meet the standards for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (unlike a minor sex scandal and/or lying about a personal matter.)
The real reason "impeachment is off the table" is because the Dems would prefer retaining control of the House to having their revenge.
:oyvey:
Man, if you honestly believe impeachment is about "revenge" (as opposed to upholding the Constitution) then I feel sorry for you.
alkemical
06-11-2008, 08:21 AM
I can respect this...that said, I've never been a fan of Kucinich's. His wife is hot tho....
**** yeah
TailgateNut
06-11-2008, 08:37 AM
having their revenge.
BS! This is about showing the rest of the world that we do have some morals, and believe that no one should be able to use the Oval Office to skirt the laws of our country. Maybe we can restore just a bit of the trust we have lost during this idiots reign!
Dudeskey
06-11-2008, 06:48 PM
passed by a vote of 251-166... off to the Judiciary committee it goes where Conyers will decide whether this should go forward or not... 24 republicans voted w/ 227 dems in favor of this... the remaining 166 came from republicans.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll401.xml
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-11-2008, 10:11 PM
BS! This is about showing the rest of the world that we do have some morals, and believe that no one should be able to use the Oval Office to skirt the laws of our country. Maybe we can restore just a bit of the trust we have lost during this idiots reign!
Ding ding ding!
Impeaching a president for lying about a penny-ante sex scandal more accurately qualifies as "revenge."
DomCasual
06-11-2008, 11:42 PM
Man, if you honestly believe impeachment is about "revenge" (as opposed to upholding the Constitution) then I feel sorry for you.
Wait - was it about revenge or upholding the Constitution in '98? ???
Pseudofool
06-12-2008, 12:26 AM
Pointless political theatre.I think it's important to historically document that not every representative was boneheaded about the criminal wrong doing of the President whether it materializes into anything.
I think it's important to historically document that not every representative was boneheaded about the criminal wrong doing of the President whether it materializes into anything.
This is up there with a Congresscum declaring "National Rutabaga Day". BFD.
Hogan11
06-12-2008, 01:25 AM
This is up there with a Congresscum declaring "National Rutabaga Day". BFD.
His wife is still hot though.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-12-2008, 03:15 AM
Wait - was it about revenge or upholding the Constitution in '98? ???
It was about revenge (for Tricky Dick) and undoing election results.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-12-2008, 03:17 AM
I think it's important to historically document that not every representative was boneheaded about the criminal wrong doing of the President whether it materializes into anything.
Yep.
The alternative is to just allow Bush to set a precedent for wiping your ass with the Constitution and establishing a unitary executive which then becomes acceptable.
The Constitution already has a bunch of skidmarks on it from past presidents - both Democrats and Republicans. Your buddy Clinton wasn't above violating his oath of office when his political ambitions "required" that he do so...
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-12-2008, 09:53 AM
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2715/georgesays8wm8.jpg
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-12-2008, 10:03 AM
There's W*GS doing what he does best:
Changing the subject to Clinton so as to ensure that any honest assessment of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors (and whether impeachment is the right remedy or not) never happens (at least not for him, anyway.)
And only a complete moral retard would argue that one man shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes simply because another man somehow escaped justice for lesser crimes (real or imagined) in the past.
Breaker
06-12-2008, 10:08 AM
BS! This is about showing the rest of the world that we do have some morals, and believe that no one should be able to use the Oval Office to skirt the laws of our country. Maybe we can restore just a bit of the trust we have lost during this idiots reign!
Then why do the Democrats want to give Clinton a complete pass on lying under oath?. If you are going to hold everyone accountable, regardless of their office then both he and Bush should have been impeached. If a private citizen lied under oath, they go to prison.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-12-2008, 10:17 AM
Then why do the Democrats want to give Clinton a complete pass on lying under oath?.
Because:
a) Clinton was impeached - and acquitted by the Senate.
b) When you claim Clinton lied under oath, you are accusing him of perjury. Clinton did not commit perjury. Your insistence that he did only exposes your ignorance of the law.
c) Because lying about consensual sex with another adult isn't the same thing as lying about the reasons for taking the country to war and getting >4,000 Americans killed for justifications that turned out to be lies.
But nice job of deflecting attention from the question of whether or not Bush should be impeached.
Changing the subject to Clinton so as to ensure that any honest assessment of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors (and whether impeachment is the right remedy or not) never happens (at least not for him, anyway.)
I've never seen you even note that past presidents have used the Constitution as ****paper; from your point of view, Bush is the first president to violate his oath of office.
IMNSHO, every president going back quite a ways has committed impeachable offenses; Bush's are worse than some, similar to others, and not as bad as some.
Of course, anything that doesn't follow your bash-Bush-all-the-time orgy of hatred automatically means that the person who doesn't kowtow to your ridiculous bitterness is somehow an agent of Bush, or a Bush blower, or some other asinine bull****.
The truth is that the government has been running rampant over our rights for a very long time, and what pisses me off is that people like you, LABF, not only gave the government a pass until Bush came along, you cheered the State along the way.
It's ****wads like you that have put us into the current situation.
Thanks for nothing, ****head.
PS - And you have the gall to call me a "moral retard". Look in the ****ing mirror to see a true example, asswipe.
SonOfLe-loLang
06-12-2008, 11:06 AM
Then why do the Democrats want to give Clinton a complete pass on lying under oath?. If you are going to hold everyone accountable, regardless of their office then both he and Bush should have been impeached. If a private citizen lied under oath, they go to prison.
I'll give him a complete pass for lying under oath, because the entire thing was farking ridiculous and really no one's business. So he's an adulter! Big whoop, that's not even a crime! What he does behind closed doors is his business and his "indescretion" had absolutely no effect on the daily lives of Americans. It became a huge distraction where tons of smugly, self-righteous "moralistic" government officials (who probably all do the same thing) decided they wanted something to b*tch about. We were truly the laughingstock of the world and eventually people realized this and, i believe, clinton's approval rating was never higher after this whole thing was put to bed.
Pseudofool
06-12-2008, 03:27 PM
This is up there with a Congresscum declaring "National Rutabaga Day". BFD.It's as if you don't think Bush actually abused his powers of office or committed provable crimes. And you're not a Neocon?
It's as if you don't think Bush actually abused his powers of office or committed provable crimes.
Name me a president that [i]didn't[/] abuse the powers of the office or committed crimes. William Henry Harrison doesn't count, BTW.
At this point in Bush's presidency, Kucinich is merely engaging in theatre. If this was 2003-2004, that's a different story.
Bush ought to be impeached. Long ago, actually. But it's too late now.
Spider
06-12-2008, 04:29 PM
Then why do the Democrats want to give Clinton a complete pass on lying under oath?. If you are going to hold everyone accountable, regardless of their office then both he and Bush should have been impeached. If a private citizen lied under oath, they go to prison.
I guess it has more to do with the degree of the crime ....... example putting someone in prison for stealing a candy bar , for the same amount of time you would the DC sniper ........
Pseudofool
06-12-2008, 06:46 PM
Name me a president that [i]didn't[/] abuse the powers of the office or committed crimes. William Henry Harrison doesn't count, BTW.
At this point in Bush's presidency, Kucinich is merely engaging in theatre. If this was 2003-2004, that's a different story.
Bush ought to be impeached. Long ago, actually. But it's too late now.So the crime--engaging in an unlawful war resulting in the deaths of thousands--doesn't matter? Nor does the degree of the abuse? Nor the number?
Sheer size of illegality around the Bush Administration warrants some Congressional documentation.
Some Patriot you are.
BTW: "Political theatre" is redundant.
So the crime--engaging in an unlawful war resulting in the deaths of thousands--doesn't matter? Nor does the degree of the abuse? Nor the number?
These criteria do matter - but if Bush is to be impeached for these crimes, then what about Truman and JFK/LBJ? Shouldn't they have been impeached for the same criteria? What about Clinton's unlawful and UN-unapproved bombing of Serbs?
How many innocents can a President have killed before he's committed an impeachable offense?