Repugnican tactic to spin in the face of impeachment

[deadmessengers]

Here's a wild prediction pulled straight out of my hat: before long, we're going to hear some Repugnican refer to the looming impeachment proceedings against Shrub as "Tit for tat" and "revenge". We'll hear someone spout off about "well, we impeached one of theirs, and since then they've been lusting for revenge, and they wanted to get one of ours one way or the other"

Brace yourselves, and keep a barf bucket handy - it's coming, mark my words.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Trapped criminals will stop at nothing to save their hides.

NGU.

[Homer12]

2. It is...

... This is going to be an "Eye for an Eye" so to speak and not only are we looking for a little revenge from these lying pathetic scum feeding criminal Rethuglicans becuase they need to be punished, but also for justice and Truth.

So they can eat their spin becuase I'm going to shovel it back into their mouths.

[onenote]

3. "looming" impeachment proceedings?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There is no chance ... as in zero, zilch, nada -- of "impeachment proceedings" occuring unless and until the Democrats recapture the House and even if that happens, I think that there's a greater than 50 percent chance that the Dems won't pursue impeachment because they're afraid it will alienate moderate voters who are sick of political fights and just want to see someone actually govern. Now, its possible public sentiment will change, but the fact is that right now its the holiday season and people are more concerned with (1) shopping (2) how the weather might impact their travel plans (3) whether aunt Jenny will wear that awful perfume like she does every year than with the fact that chimpy has authorized email and phone snooping. While snoopgate is a big story, I don't see it galvanizing the country so far (although it has awakened the media somewhat).

Maybe it's a story that will have legs and will grow. But I'm not betting on it. Rather than trigger impeachment it probably will just help keep chimpy's numbers down in the 40 percent range.

onenote

[IndianaGreen]

4. They get plenty of help from the Democratic side

Case in point, Senator Levin on Sunday's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You said the president acted above the law. Do you believe the president of the United States broke the law?

SEN. LEVIN: If he did not follow the FISA law, then I believe he would have broken the law. But I don't want to prejudge whether the president broke the law. We need an explanation, we need it fast. The American public is entitled to the protections of the law.

The president claims to have followed the law here. He says he acted on behalf of American security. OK. If that's his motive, that's what he claims his motive is. Others will justify that. History will justify or not justify that. But he claims that he abided by the laws and Constitution of the United States but he avoided going to the court which the laws require him to go to either before or immediately afterwards, and if he's claiming to be law-abiding and to abide by statutes, which he is, what are the statutes? The attorney general must inform us promptly. The president owes that to the American people.

MR. RUSSERT: If he in fact broke the law, what then?

SEN. LEVIN: We have to first decide if the law was broken before we then try to figure out what is the appropriate action to be taken.

MR. RUSSERT: But is that a constitutional crisis?

SEN. LEVIN: It hopefully is not, but we don't know. I don't want to prejudge that. We should avoid prejudgment. We should get all of the facts here and insist that the president and the attorney general come to Congress and explain what are the statutory authorities or constitutional authority that he claims to have exercised.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10479765/page/4/

[madmom]

5. I heard this already way back when the lies about the war came

out and the first call for impeachment came. I don't know which one of them said it but I remember someone did.