Posts with the tag 'impeachment'
So says this Newsmax report:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dropped a bombshell by reversing course and suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might take up the issue of impeaching President Bush.
Pelosi’s change of heart comes after Rep. Dennis Kucinich moved a “privileged resolution” to force the House to consider whether Bush should be impeached for, according to the Ohio Democrat, lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Pelosi had previously declared impeachment to be “off the table” before the 2006 election. But she now believes hearings on the impeachment issue are “a distinct possibility,” according to The Nation magazine.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday: “My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee. This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee.”
Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the committee, has said he is reviewing the articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed. Previously he had felt constrained by the Speaker’s “off the table” comment.
This is either a sop to the kook left - a means of keeping them occupied by smoke and mirrors (they are rather gullible, after all) while Obama shifts right for the fall election…or its a desperate attempt to make people hate President Bush enough to carry Obama over the finish line in November (this would be the case if internal Democratic polling shows that only a tremendously and continuously unpopular Bush gives Obama an edge over McCain). In either case, its a dishonorable thing to do…and, of course, real hearings will never happen, nor will articles of impeachment be passed by the House, because a trial in the Senate would expose that each and every criticism of President Bush vis a vis Iraq is massively overstated, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. The last thing Democrats want is a full airing of the Iraq issue prior to the November election.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Dennis Kucinich, impeachment, Iraq, John Conyers, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi
July 12th, 2008
Despite Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s well known rampant corruption, he was easily reelected back in 2006. But it looks like Illinois voters are finally realizing that it’s time to stop letting party loyalty make them turn a blind eye. A new poll shows that nearly 2/3 of Illinois registered voters want the Democrat governor to be impeached.
A new statewide poll has found that 59 percent of Illinois registered voters want the Illinois Legislature to begin impeachment hearings against Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The survey of 600 registered voters was conducted May 7 to 10 and has a margin of error of plus/minus 4 percent.
Conducted by the Glengariff Group, the poll found Blagojevich’s disapproval rating was a whopping 65 percent, while just 26 percent approve. An Ipsos poll conducted in late March found 54 percent disapproved of Blagojevich’s performance, but Ipsos also asked whether respondents had “mixed feelings,” whereas Glengariff just asked straight up whether they approved or disapproved.
The governor’s job approval ratings, the coverage of the Tony Rezko trial, the frustrated attempt to put recall on the ballot, the disastrous debate over yet another pay raise for legislators and the governor, and the horrendous right-track/wrong-track numbers (14 percent said the state was on the right track, while 71 percent said it was on the wrong track) all likely contributed to the impeachment hearings result.
Just 29.6 percent of registered voters opposed holding impeachment hearings, while 38 percent strongly supported holding hearings and 20.5 percent “somewhat supported” the idea.
Even a plurality of Democrats supports holding impeachment hearings. Democratic voters said they supported the idea by a margin of 49.4 percent to 41.5 percent. Independents overwhelmingly like the proposal, backing it 63 to 24. And it’s probably no surprise that Republicans love it. A whopping 73.5 percent of GOP voters said it was a good idea, compared to just 16 percent who said it wasn’t.
Blagojevich’s troubles go way back, and Mark and I even went into some detail about the dark ethical cloud hanging over him in our book, Caucus of Corruption. I’m glad the people of Illinois have finally begun opening their eyes.
Tags: Corruption, impeachment, Rod Blagojevich
May 19th, 2008
And this guys platform was all about routing out corruption..
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.
An affidavit in the federal investigation into a prostitution ring said that a wiretap recording captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room. The person briefed on the case identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.
He may resign this evening.
UPDATE: While I am commuting back home on the train I would like to add that considering the dark ethical cloud hanging over Spitzer’s office since he became governor — his office was the subject of multiple investigations — it is somewhat unfortunate that this alone is what people will remember about his downfall.
UPDATE: Video of Spitzer apologizing…
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Spitzer’s prospective replacement - Lt. Governor David Patterson, formerly NY Senate Minority Leader - also has an issue to deal with:
A US District Court judge has rejected the Senate Democrats’ effort to block a discrimination lawsuit filed by a white photographer who claims he was fired by former Minority Leader David Paterson only because he wasn’t black.
The ruling, first reported by the New York Law Journal (subscription only), makes for some interesting reading.
Paterson, now the lieutenant governor, asserted he axed the photographer, Joseph Maioriello, because he was a holdover from former Minortiy Leader Marty Connor’s regime. Paterson said he was unsure where Maioriello’s loyalties lay and was worried that Connor, whom he ousted in 2002, and others were “plotting” to re-gain control of the Democratic caucus.
Maioriello was replaced by an African-American photographer, El-Wise Noisette, who last worked for former state Comptroller H. Carl McCall (the first black gubernatorial candidate who lost his challenge to Republican Gov. George Pataki in 2002).
But Paterson insisted he had no idea about the race of either man due to the fact that he is legally blind.
“Given my visual impairment, I did not know for certain the race of either the plaintiff or Noisette,” Paterson stated in his deposition.
There’s just too many jokes to say about this…I’ll hold fire.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Kossacks, naturally, blame President Bush:
If Spitzer has a taste for call girls, I won’t defend that… Neither am I prone to jump on it and go to town. I’m strictly of the Larry Flynt camp…Let it all out, and let the hypocrites wither in the light of day.
But I have a very discerning internal alarm. and that alarm tells me that this story only hit the news because the NSA, or the FBI…was snooping on this guy because he is so on the record as a trust buster and corporate cop.
Mark my words…this has the Bush Administration’s fingerprints all over it…and if the MSM digs a little deeper, they will find what Congress is afraid to look for…evidence that Bush’s wiretap program has less to do with terrorists than it has to do with political foes.
UPDATE: As the New York Times notes, this is a federal crime…
Federal prosecutors rarely charge clients in prostitution cases, which are generally seen as state crimes. But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution. The four defendants charged in the case unsealed last week were all charged with that crime, along with several others.
UPDATE: Impeachment threat if he doesn’t resign…
Tags: Corruption, Eliot Spitzer, impeachment
March 11th, 2008
George McGovern is calling for the impeachment of President Bush in this Washington Post opinion piece.
The usual litany - he illegally lied us into war in Iraq; he’s cruelly exploited 9/11 to make us all so fearful that we went along with him; he’s having people tortured at Gitmo; he deliberately bungled the Katrina recovery; he stole the 2000 election; he’s spying on Americans…all of the really rather stupid things the left has gathered together about President Bush since the Supreme Court insisted in 2000 that the laws be followed and denied Al Gore’s request to keep changing Florida’s election laws until they came out with a result he liked. Historians in the future will marvel at this - a man, President Bush, intensely hated and that hatred based upon an accusation of election-stealing which should actually be levelled against his 2000 opponent, Al Gore.
We’d love to be a united country again - but we’re not going to be as long as the left demonises us on the right.
UPDATE: Well, he’s either senile, or he’s a liar - from Volokh:
Setting aside the arguments for and against impeaching President Bush, McGovern is seriously misrepresenting his position on the Nixon impeachment proceedings. According to these news stories, for example, McGovern called for impeaching President Nixon in a speech in Richmond, VA in October 1973 in order “to make America safe for Democracy.” A Westlaw search also identifies abstracts to New York Times stories suggesting McGovern urged Nixon’s impeachment on other occasions as well. For instance, the abstract to a NYT story from January 21, 1974 reports that McGovern believed there were “ample grounds” for impeaching President Nixon and that he was urging the Democratic Party to take this position.
I suppose McGovern could defend his column by arguing that he did not support Nixon’s impeachment in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 Presidential election, and only supported impeachment later on. Yet if this were the case, he should have qualified his claim, perhaps by writing “Immediately after the 1972 presidential election.” As written, his article is misleading, if not worse.
You know, it wasn’t just Nixon they wanted to impeach…they were calls for the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, too. I’ll bet there were such calls also made for Ford and the elder Bush, as well. Essentially, liberal Democrats have a core belief that conservative Republicanism is - or at least should be - illegal. They’re always saying we doing this illegal, that illegal, the other illegal…calling for President Bush’s impeachment really has nothing to do with President Bush, but with a general desire on the left for the right to be silenced.
Tags: George McGovern, impeachment, Iraq
January 6th, 2008
Just amazing:
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) — President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.
A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.
“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.
As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.
The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.
The measure asks: “Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?”
You know what I would do, if I were President Bush? On January 21st, 2009, I’d head up there to answer the charges. He can’t do it while he’s in office for a variety of reasons, but once he’s out of office, it would be a great opportunity to show what a bunch of world-class fruitcakes his critics are. President Bush couldn’t get a fair trial in Vermont, so he’d have to argue for a change of venue - to a State which voted more closely to 50/50 in either 2000 or 2004. Ohio would seem the most likely place to get an impartial jury, though if the lefties insist on a place Bush lost narrowly, we can go with Wisconsin. Once a venue and date are set, then the real fun would begin.
There is nothing of any substance to any of the criticisms levelled against President Bush - but the leftwing loons who are pushing this measure believe the whole kit and kaboodle. I’m sure they are a grab-bag collection of “truthers” who think that President Bush had a hand in 9/11, lied to get us into Iraq and has worked diliegently to suppress freedom in the United States. Can you imagine what sort of kooks would be brought forward to testify against President Bush? Heck, we might even get Joe Wilson on the stand - and wouldn’t we all love to have him cross-examined? It’d be a great media circus, and it would expose the left for what they are - screwball, blame-America-first losers.
HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin via NRO’s The Corner
Tags: impeachment, Kook Left
December 29th, 2007
Well, it is a way for a second-rate Presidential candidate to get in the news - as well as wow the lefties:
PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without Congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a Seacoast Media Group forum Thursday, which focused on the Iraq War and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of another war with Iran, he said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the oval office.
“The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, which was followed by a raucous applause.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much, and intends to send it to the President.
Senator Biden will need some constitutional experts - because he needs to be told that only the House can impeach. The Senate holds the trial only if the House impeaches…so, until such time as an article of impeachment comes from the House, the only thing Biden has to do to occupy his time is make innane statements to scant crowds as he goes about his rather quixotic bid for the White House.
But I’ll bet dollars to donuts there are lefties out there on Kos right now writing “at last” sorts of posts about how, finally!, someone is going after Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler in a serious manner….
Tags: Biden, impeachment, Iran
November 30th, 2007
Last week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any “controversial” recess appointments. Roll Call reports that sources said “Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch.”
James Joyner of Outside The Beltway nailed it when he said:
One wonders why they’d do that, given how cooperative the Democrats have been in moving through Bush appointments…
Yes, it’s hard to comprehend how Reid can be serious about calling Bush a “bully” when Democrats have tried every tactic available to them to stall or block Bush’s nominations. Be it Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or John Bolton, Democrats have abused the filibuster to prevent or delay confirmation of highly qualified people, solely because they were conservative and nominated by Bush.
In other words, had Democrats respected the Constitution and given Bush’s nominees the up-or-down votes they were entitled to deserved, recess appointments wouldn’t be an issue.
Another interesting point by James Joyner:
Given that both parties have been in permanent campaign mode for the last fifteen years or so, the traditional checks and balances process has gone from a system to force compromise to one used to bludgeon the other side and score points. That’s led to both branches using extraordinary tools like recess appointments and filibusters on a routine basis which, in turn, ratchets the pressure up another several notches.
I would also add that this “campaign mode” has gotten worse since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential elections. Because of these two events, Democrats feel justified in abusing the filibuster, delaying funding for our troops, leaking the details of classified anti-terrorism programs, etc. etc.
Compromise won’t exist anymore because of the Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1993 by a 96-3 vote. Think any nominee by a Republican or a Democrat will ever be confirmed by such a margin again? Don’t count on it. Democrats have assured that bipartisanship is near death or already dead in Washington, D.C. Harry Reid’s threat to keep the Senate in session during Thanksgiving break is merely a symptom of a disease his party is largely responsible for.
Tags: filibuster, Harry Reid, impeachment, partisanship, President Bush
November 19th, 2007
