Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vermont Senate Votes To Impeach Bush, Cheney

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:22 AM
Original message
Vermont Senate Votes To Impeach Bush, Cheney
Source: AP/CBS2.Chicago

(AP) MONTPELIER, Vt. Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionally."

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate - all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."

"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Read more: http://cbs2chicago.com/national/topstories_story_110100239.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
deepthought42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Let the fun begin!
Let's make sure this doesn't end here! :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Don't worry the fun begins
Wednesday April, 25 in the house with Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deepthought42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Eep...
Let's hope it's lots o' fun!

BTW, love your avatar. Going to see him in concert next month! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Great news!
Even better news would be Pelosi saying that Impeachment is "back on the table".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agtcovert Donating Member (101 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes...
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Every state needs to follow VT's lead!
:woohoo: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is excellent! (Also overdue)
--- Ultimate constitutional authority resides with the individual states. The individual states wrote it,... ratified it,... and only they can amend it. Compared to the power of the respective states, the neocon vision of a unitary executive (dictator) is but a blip on the radar screen. If the state governments get engaged,.. then the PNAC party is over for good. Let's go, Vermont!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilinmad Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
7. Im confused..
...neither Bush or Cheney had an extramarital affair...All they did was start an illegal war.....Why impeach them?:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mantis49 Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
8. Question.........
How many states would need to do this to force impeachment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. One State With an Honest Representative
who will carry the state's resolution to the House and thereby get it on the roll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mantis49 Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Aahh......
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cain_7777 Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Six years late but about damn time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. There needs to be pressure applied to the Vermont House and its Democratic Speaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bush gets impeached...
Cheney has a heart attack, Pelosi takes over.:dilemma: Works for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt-60 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. Cheney first or synchronized impeachment
We don't want that animal with his finger on the Martial law button for even a millisecond.
Can you imagine what kind of fascist cur he would appoint as his VP?
maybe Vice President Falwell, or Limbaugh, or yet another Bush?
No, Cheney goes first or at the same instant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. It's a nice gesture. But it's still just another non-binding resolution. We need Pelosi to move.
She needs to put impeachment back on the table.
NOW.
Do Dick and Bush at the same time.
(What a slogan.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
15. but Vt. house speaker will not let it go forward.
Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important.

In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up the measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Too bad Speaker Symington still hasn't "realized" an impeachment
resolution is the ONLY way to get the United States out of Iraq (i.g. redeployed to better strategic locations).

After 4 years+ plus of catastrophic Bu$che/Chainy dictatorship mismanagement, one must wonder where she's been... :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
17. Proud to be a Vermonter
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
61. So you were born
in Vermont? I just love that State of the Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
18. Oh. Non-binding.
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 11:08 AM by Canuckistanian
Still, they've got the right idea.

An actual BINDING vote will get my attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
19. Terrible editing on that story. Constitutionality.
Sometimes the internet is the worst place to read the news. But YAY! I'm totally down with this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
20. Fabulosovich! Oh, please, please, please, 49 states follow Vermont's lead! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
21. Like I didn't already want to live in Vermont!
:woohoo: Let's bring this to the US House, now please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
22. has this ever happened before?
anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gen. Jack D. Ripper Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. I won't happen
Pelosi knows that most of the American people do not support impeachment. Even though most don't approve of the job he's doing, they don't view his transgressions as impeachment worthy. Because of this, Pelosi is being very cautious. What we need to do is give the American people a clear, specific example of a law that was broken. A "question of constitutionality," isn't enough, we need something concrete. Now I know that Bush is guilty of multiple offenses, but we need to be able to prove it, beyond a doubt. Otherwise, impeachment efforts will be viewed by the general public as political fishing, with partisan motives. Come on, the chimpster has GOT to have left evidence some where. Maybe we already know of something. Link me up if you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Do we really know that most Americans don't support impeachment?
I don't think I've ever heard the question put to a poll. Could be that I just missed it, but I've been wishing for some time Zogby or somebody would come right out with a "should the president be impeached?" poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. This is the closest thing I could find:
Edited on Fri Apr-20-07 12:20 PM by MGKrebs
"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"

Wish It Was Over 58%

Don't Feel This Way 37%

Unsure 5%

1/24-25/07

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

edit: Just found this too, but it's a little old:

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"


Should Be Should Not Be Unsure

30 69 1

8/30 - 9/2/06
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
57. We know the opposite - A majority wants impeachment as "a priority"
We've "known" this since before the last election:



Even among the 44% (minority) who opposed were many Dems who presumedly were simply following the timid DC Dem "leadership." If you add them in, it matches nearly exactly the 58% "Wish It Was Over" number posted above.

However, the Euphemedia has worked frantically to deny this reality and deflect the real demand of the last election into an "All About Iraq" Anti-War (only) ghetto -- something far more safe and familiar to them.

---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. I'd like to know what you have supporting your opening statement.
How do you know that most American people do not support impeachment? I could have sworn I saw a Gallop poll that indicated more people supported impeaching Bush than did Clinton at the time. Pretty sure it was trumpeted in several places across DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gen. Jack D. Ripper Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Show me a link and I'll be happy to admit I was wrong
but I have heard no such thing. If it's true, great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Why don't we both look at the same time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gen. Jack D. Ripper Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Well, I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

If you scroll down, under the "public Opinion" section there are polling results. As recently as October of '06 a Newsweek poll showed that 51% of Americans are for Impeachment. It's close, but it does show more support for impeachment than I thought existed. I think my assertion was based on what I had heard from the major news networks, I should have known better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. You found more positive stuff than I did.
But then I tend to avoid wikipedia. I'm not convinced it doesn't get tinkered with for biased reasons.

I suspect this is a subject where polls could go either way depending upon how you ask the question. Regardless, it seems safe to say that more people would support impeaching Bush now than actually supported impeaching Clinton at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Here's some information.
August '06 USA Today/Gallup poll shows only 30% favoring impeachment and removal of Bush from office. The following poll is from January '07 but only asks about wiretapping. It was the ZI poll I remember being so prominent at DU.

From what I can tell, there have been no independent "impeach: yes / no" polls conducted. Therefore, I don't think either side has any data to quantify American attitudes about the subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Hear!! Here!!
Link to PDF document: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/mckinneyarticles.pdf

109TH CONGRESS
2ND SESSION
H. Res. 1106
Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush,
President of the United States of America, and other
officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
_____________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF
REPESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 8, 2006
Ms. McKINNEY introduced the following Resolution:
_____________________________
RESOLUTION
Resolved, that George Walker Bush, President of the United States,
is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that
the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the
United States Senate:

Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the
name of itself and of all the people of the United States of
America, against George Walker Bush, President of the
United States of America, and other officials, in
maintenance and support of its impeachment against him
for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled that:

ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
In violation of the oath of office, which reads: “I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best
of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States,” George Walker Bush, in his conduct
while President of the United States has demonstrated a
pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and
disregard for the Constitution itself.

This conduct includes the following:

* Manipulating Intelligence and Lying to Justify War.
* In violation of the separation of powers under the
* Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share
* intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while
* serving as President of the United States of America, in
* preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence
* from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with
* the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by
* redacting information by, for example, removing portions
* of reports such as the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily

Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s
alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central
Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to
provide intelligence such that “the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy” as revealed in the
“Downing Street Memo.”
To this end, President George
Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created
the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override
existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable
evidence that supported the claim that Iraq’s alleged
weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to
the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of
Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to
the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting
that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was
importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions
being either false, or based on “fixed” intelligence, with the
intent to misinform the people and their representatives in
Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq,
denying both the people and their representatives in
Congress the right to make an informed choice, George
Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit
and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of
America.


ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

In violation of his oath to “faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States,” George Walker Bush, in his
conduct while President of the United States, has
consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by
obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional
investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of
the powers of his office.

This conduct includes the following:

* Failure to Uphold Accountability.
* In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of office
* to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which
* he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for
* the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested
* in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker
* Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or
* discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of
* negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment
* of the American people.

* Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the
* United States of America, has failed to hold to account
* include but are not limited to the following top-level
* officials in his administration:

(a) Richard Cheney. In violation of his oath of office to
support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice
President of the United States of America, played a key
role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of
promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring
analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to “fix” their
intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in
relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard
Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit
and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of
America.

(b) Condoleezza Rice, In violation of her Constitutional
duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence
information with the Congress, as former National Security
Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in
deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating
and propagating false statements concerning Iraq’s alleged
weapons of mass destruction program, including false
information that the purchase of aluminum tubes
demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons
program, false information that Iraq was seeking to
purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought
help in developing a chemical and biological weapons
program; whereby Conoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of
the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of
high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials
and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible
for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker
Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was
guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of
America.

Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George
Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleezza Rice
warrant impeachment, trial and removal from office.

ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States of America to “take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed,” George Walker Bush,
during his tenure as President of the United States, has
violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal
procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has
violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that
carry out the law.

This conduct includes the following:

* Illegal Domestic Spying.
* In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
* (FISA) <50 USC Chapter 36>, George Walker Bush did
* clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and
* various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside
* the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated
* to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic
* surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil
* without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant,
* thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the
* Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence
* Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress,
* whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive
* power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign
* Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and
* another judge to resign in protest, the said program having
* been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has
* also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of
* spying on American citizens from the people and all but a
* few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to
* outright public deceit as on 20 April, 2004, when he told an
* audience in Buffalo, New York: “any time you hear the
* United States government talking about wiretap, it
* requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
* When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
* talking about getting a court order before we do so,”
* whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United
* States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against
* the United States of America.

In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and
unapologetically misled the American people and has
sought to undermine the system of checks and balances
established by the Founding Founders. Wherefore George
Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving
our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of
arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and
removal from office.

Document: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/mckinneyarticles.pdf


To think that this is just the tip of the iceberg... (nothing about blatant RW corruption in this doc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vilis Veritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. I love Ms. McKinney
However, she likes Alex Jones and believes in a lot of his (conspiracy) theories.

Ms McKinney even spoke when AJ was given an award for his work. But his sites are unreliable, according to DU.

Ms McKinney could be another CT'er...This places great doubt in my mind about these so called Ariticles of Impeachment and their basis in reality...:sarcasm:

For some reason the sheer mention of AJ's name in this post has me worried about it being pulled. Yet the author of those Articles is an ardent fan...I am confused. :shrug:

Wow, just got a call about Gunman in Johnson Space Center...damn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. It won't happen. But not because the people don't want impeachment.


What the people want has little bearing on what either party does to us. It won't happen because both parties are dependent on corporate lobbyist donations to run their campaigns. In particular they depend on defense related corporations for their largess. It may or may not be obvious but defense related corporations DO NOT want impeachment. They are making too much money on war. To end the war means that they lose a huge profit center.

Just the words "impeachment is off the table" should tell you all that is necessary. The people want to be rid of this incompetent, criminal junta. The corporations are in love with it. They've never made so much money, nor have the very rich paid so little in taxes. Guess whose desires are met by a congress addicted to corporate donations.

Nothing will change, and nothing CAN change until we remove the profit motive from politics. That means public financing of all elections. Until then we will operate under the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

It strikes me that this may be a perfect time for Democrats to publicly forswear corporate funding. We see a public that is nauseated with the money of politics, sick of the entire republican criminal enterprise, and ready for BIG change. Were the Democrats to, as a party, push for public campaign financing they would be viewed as national heroes. But that takes balls. And as we all have seen for so many, many years, Democrats have allowed themselves to be emasculated to the point of ineffectiveness.

Frankly I'm very disappointed with our party leadership. Pelosi I see as just Gingrich in drag, ie. politics first, last and always. But then I'm biased. I want Democratic Party leadership to stand for something again. Things like fair labor practices, fair trade, and policies that enable the middle class working families once more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gen. Jack D. Ripper Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I agree with everything you said, but
if the will of the people doesn't effect the actions of politicians, we have the power to change that. The power of the people is innate. It is ours, inherently, to use if and when we choose. No corporate lobbyist can change that, except when we allow. Because of apathy and ignorance the people have allowed not only the destructive activity of the Bush administration but the corporate sponsorship you mentioned. Which brings me back to my original point, the problem can't be corrected until a majority of Americans recognize that there is a problem. Why doesn't your average citizen see the actions of the Bush administration as criminal? Or, for that matter, the corruption of our system as a whole? Or, do they? Maybe it's not that they don't see it, maybe they just don't think there's anything they can do about it. Or, maybe they tolerate it for the same reason our elected officials tolerate it, money. Either way, if the American people fervently wanted the president removed from office, it would happen and all the lobbyists in the world wouldn't be able to stop it. But, the consciousness of our society collective is slow in changing it's ways. I think history has taught us that it takes a major catalyst event to move he people to serious action. I just don't know what that could be for us or when it might happen. Meanwhile our system of government continues to degrade further from the principles of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. Bush freely admits his crimes. Violating the FISA law is one example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. Here is a website full of them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Lying about WMD is enough to impeach. The time line and those 16 words prove it.
In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.<1> They stated:

'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'



The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
53. There have been polls and state groups and people in the streets all over the country
...pages and pages of them:

<snips>
Polls, What Polls?
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-12-28 19:56. Polls
By David Swanson

I have a lot of respect for Joel Wendland, so this article of his ("Impeachment: A Note of Caution") disturbs me. Just after criticizing someone else for making claims without citing sufficient sources, Wendland writes this:

while polls show that voters soundly rebuffed Bush’s war policy and Republican corruption, and are seriously concerned about the administration’s handling of the economy and many social issues, the movement for impeachment has yet to be effectively built. Simple as that.

Simple, huh? So simple that Joel doesn't cite a single poll, not even any of the few that have been done. Had he done so, he would have noticed that by a margin of 51% to 44% according to Newsweek's latest, Americans favor Bush's impeachment as either a high or low priority (it's safe to assume a significantly larger majority favors impeaching Cheney). He would have also seen that just prior to the election surveys showed that Americans expected that if the Democrats won a majority they would impeach - a belief that didn't prevent a Democratic sweep. Of course most polling doesn't, and all exit polling didn't, ask about impeachment at all. But that's far from a "simple" matter, and I know that Joel knows better than to read into that something more than the agenda of the corporations doing the polling. He's right that we have a movement to build, but the evidence for that is to be seen in the streets, not in any polls I know of.
<MORE>

http://www.impeachpac.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. Anyone know what really happened? This article is useless. What does 'non-binding' mean?
Non-binding on whom?

Jefferson's Rules--the official rules of Congress--give each state legislature the power to submit a bill of impeachment to the US House. It is a privileged resolution. All Congressional business must stop, to consider it. So, what does "non-binding" mean in this context? That they are NOT going to submit their resolution to the US House--or will not be seeking consensus with the VT House to submit a bill of impeachment that both VT houses have voted on?

I am unclear on a couple of things re: Jefferson's Rules. 1) In the case of a bicameral state legislature, do both houses have to concur? 2) Does the governor have to concur? 3) Does a state Congressional rep have to agree to submit the bill of impeachment?

I'm pretty sure that #3 is yes. But I'm not sure of #1 and #2. Anybody know?

So, again: WHO is this resolution NOT binding of? And if it were "binding," what would that mean? Who would be bound?

The VT legislature cannot "bind" Congress to do anything. All it can do is SUBMIT a privileged bill of impeachment to the US House, and start the investigative/impeachment process.

From there, I suppose the US House would have to vote on whether to consider it immediately, on its merits, or remand it to the Judiciary Committee (Conyers) for a full investigation (hearings, and reporting back).

Use of this Jefferson Rule would indeed be unprecedented, as far as I know. So the fate of such a bill would probably rest in the hands of the leadership (Pelosi et al) who would CREATE precedents for how it would be handled. Not good, considering what Pelosi has said so far. However, it would likely start an avalanche against Bush/Cheney--in the country, and hopefully in Congress. Other states may join. It is the will of the people, I'm sure of that. Get rid of these criminals!

Note: Jefferson's Rules also give federal grand juries the power to submit bills of impeachment to the US House. (And I'm thinking this might come in handy, down the line, when we want to get rid of Bush-appointed judges. Supreme Court justices, and lower federal court judges, are also subject to House impeachment proceedings, as are all federal officers, including, by the way, AG Alberto "torture memo" Gonzales).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
30. Another proud Vermonter.
At the very least, we`ll be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
33. if any lurking freeper
doesn't think this is big for a state to do this, well they're drinking a bit too much kool aid...
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kedrys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. Popcorn!!
Got a whole kettle of the stuff right here. Make selves at home, this should be interesting. :popcorn: :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrZeeLit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
36. I LOVE MY STATE... way to go Verrrrrrrrmont! (and spring has sprung!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
39. SAAAAALUTE to my friends in Vermont!
:applause::bounce::applause::bounce::applause::bounce::applause::bounce::applause::bounce::applause::bounce::applause:
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. Yesssssssss Vermont!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
42. Woo Hoo!
Go Vermont! :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
45. House Speaker Gaya Symington is keeping it from a vote in Washington
"Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important."


And we all what a great chance we have of getting the soldiers out of Iraq with bush and cheney in office.:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
49. A small hope but a hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
50. kick
the Constitution says "shall"

...Shall be impeached.... (not "may")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
51. I can't wait;
This means that the Ohio Senate will soon follow in a show of solidarity... Oh hell, who am I kidding? These are the freepturds that did not vote taft out of office after his conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
52. The people speak
The people, yes.

Power to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarryNite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-20-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
55. Vermont
You rock! :yourock: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
56. There's Vermont for you. Register Republican, but vote any damn way you want to. And don't be shy
about calling for the impeachment of Republicans if you think you need to.

Damn, am I happy I was born a Vermonter.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorbal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I know, there are some real conservative folks in Vermont.
They have more per capita in the service than any other state and aren't afraid to make their feelings known about anything. There is a real left-wing contigent as well butit doesn't feel like people are polarized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Hook Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
59. Was there a vote a couple years ago about VT seceding from the Union?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
60. THese Vermonters will go down in
history as people, who saw what the bush regime is doing to their country, and did not sit back and hope for the best.

DAMN STRAIGHT, VERMONTERS!! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. What a surprise this morning
to see that headline. Now to get the House to intoduce this. The Democratic House leader doesn't want to, but this might put some pressure on her. Anyway, I congratulate Senate leader Peter Shumlin for making this happen. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I congratulate Vermont
State Senate Leader, Peter Shumlin, for making this HAPPEN, too..and thank him and the YEAs with all my New York :hi: ozone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC