Breathing the 'I' word

[Breeder]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breathing the 'I' word
- Elizabeth Holtzman
Friday, November 10, 2006


Though Democrats' gains on Tuesday were hard fought, they still pulled
one big punch during the campaign. Party leaders chose to refrain from
publicly uttering any "i" words -- investigation, immunity, and above
all, impeachment -- and to dismiss those who did, for fear of somehow
galvanizing disaffected GOP voters.

But whether they admit it or not, with a Democratic Party-led Congress,
President Bush could well become the target of congressional
investigations, challenges to presidential immunity and eventual
impeachment inquiries. Big legislative changes are probably not in the
cards, but willingness to use subpoena power and pursue investigations
into controversial Bush administration actions and inactions are among
the main things that will change under Democratic leadership of
Congress.

Even if impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leaders
such as Nancy Pelosi (who as the new Speaker of the House will be next
in line for the presidency after Vice President Dick Cheney), recent
national polls and impeachment-ballot initiatives in San Francisco,
Berkeley, and two townships in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., and elsewhere,
show it is on Americans' table. Leaving aside partisan "gotcha"
tactics, such as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which fail
because they lack public support or constitutional basis, Congress has
been historically reluctant to undertake impeachment, including during
Watergate. But it has done so when public sentiment reaches a boiling
point and demands holding a president accountable, as it did in 1973
after President Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Today we may be closer to reaching that boiling point again than some
may think. The Chronicle's online poll question this week surveyed
readers, 77 percent of whom to date thought impeaching President Bush
may be constitutionally required if the president were found to have
abused the power of his office. A recent Newsweek national poll showed
53 percent of Americans thought impeachment should be on the agenda
(either as a "top" or "lower" priority), with 44 percent opposing
impeachment outright. Compare these numbers to 1998 polls, where an
average of only 26 percent of Americans were open to or favored
impeaching Clinton, while an average of 63 percent opposed it outright.


Public sentiment for impeachment is strong, and stands to grow stronger
given a thoughtful discussion of constitutional standards and a full
and fair inquiry, one that allows the president to explain and defend
his conduct fully.

But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional
considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes
and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and
removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses
of power and failures to uphold the law. These include directing
illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, detainee abuse and
torture, indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina,
ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for the Iraq
occupation, deceiving Congress and Americans about reasons for the war
in Iraq and possibly seeking to cover up those deceptions by leaking
misleading classified information. These actions have disturbing
parallels with offenses for which Nixon was impeached.

I served on the House Judiciary Committee which voted to impeach him.
It did painstaking, bipartisan work in assessing and applying
constitutional and legal standards to Nixon's actions. Measured by the
same objective standards as were used in Nixon's case, an impeachment
inquiry into Bush's actions would be appropriate, and a vote to impeach
at the end of that inquiry would not be a surprising outcome.

When checks and balances fail to restrain a president from abuses of
power or from subverting the Constitution, impeachment and removal from
office is the framers' remedy. It is the tool they gave future
generations to protect democracy and the rule of law, and not to
explore it now would be a culpable failure to follow their intent.
That's why U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., in line to chair of the
House Judiciary Committee, and some 37 congressional Democrats, already
have uttered the "i" word and raised the issue of impeachment before
the election, even though the Democratic leaders didn't want to discuss
it. Whether out of political strategy or timidity we fail to breathe a
word about, much less openly debate, impeaching a president so
committed to executive overreach, Americans -- Republicans and
Democrats alike -- risk undermining the Constitution and compromising
our ability to hold future presidents accountable under the law.

Elizabeth Holtzman represented New York in the U.S. House of
Representatives from 1973 to 1981. She is the co-author, with Cynthia
L. Cooper, of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for
Concerned Citizens," (Nation Books, 2006).

[stephenj]

Breeder wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

> But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional
> considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes
> and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and
> removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses
> of power and failures to uphold the law. These include ...
> indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ....

[[email protected]]

stephenj wrote:
> Breeder wrote:
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
>
> > But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional
> > considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes
> > and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and
> > removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses
> > of power and failures to uphold the law. These include ...
> > indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina.
>
> cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ....
************************************************** ******************************************
Breathing the 'I' word
- Elizabeth Holtzman
Friday, November 10, 2006

So Liz is back again. Great - just great! The Muslim Fascists & the
Chi-Coms are definitely smiling right about now...

[Doggfish]

Why don't you write a book on being a MORON that can not figure out this is
a boxing newsgroup? Take your horse**** some where else no one here cares
about your rambling .
"Breeder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Breathing the 'I' word
> - Elizabeth Holtzman
> Friday, November 10, 2006
>
>
> Though Democrats' gains on Tuesday were hard fought, they still pulled
> one big punch during the campaign. Party leaders chose to refrain from
> publicly uttering any "i" words -- investigation, immunity, and above
> all, impeachment -- and to dismiss those who did, for fear of somehow
> galvanizing disaffected GOP voters.
>
> But whether they admit it or not, with a Democratic Party-led Congress,
> President Bush could well become the target of congressional
> investigations, challenges to presidential immunity and eventual
> impeachment inquiries. Big legislative changes are probably not in the
> cards, but willingness to use subpoena power and pursue investigations
> into controversial Bush administration actions and inactions are among
> the main things that will change under Democratic leadership of
> Congress.
>
> Even if impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leaders
> such as Nancy Pelosi (who as the new Speaker of the House will be next
> in line for the presidency after Vice President Dick Cheney), recent
> national polls and impeachment-ballot initiatives in San Francisco,
> Berkeley, and two townships in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., and elsewhere,
> show it is on Americans' table. Leaving aside partisan "gotcha"
> tactics, such as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which fail
> because they lack public support or constitutional basis, Congress has
> been historically reluctant to undertake impeachment, including during
> Watergate. But it has done so when public sentiment reaches a boiling
> point and demands holding a president accountable, as it did in 1973
> after President Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
>
> Today we may be closer to reaching that boiling point again than some
> may think. The Chronicle's online poll question this week surveyed
> readers, 77 percent of whom to date thought impeaching President Bush
> may be constitutionally required if the president were found to have
> abused the power of his office. A recent Newsweek national poll showed
> 53 percent of Americans thought impeachment should be on the agenda
> (either as a "top" or "lower" priority), with 44 percent opposing
> impeachment outright. Compare these numbers to 1998 polls, where an
> average of only 26 percent of Americans were open to or favored
> impeaching Clinton, while an average of 63 percent opposed it outright.
>
>
> Public sentiment for impeachment is strong, and stands to grow stronger
> given a thoughtful discussion of constitutional standards and a full
> and fair inquiry, one that allows the president to explain and defend
> his conduct fully.
>
> But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional
> considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes
> and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and
> removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses
> of power and failures to uphold the law. These include directing
> illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, detainee abuse and
> torture, indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina,
> ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for the Iraq
> occupation, deceiving Congress and Americans about reasons for the war
> in Iraq and possibly seeking to cover up those deceptions by leaking
> misleading classified information. These actions have disturbing
> parallels with offenses for which Nixon was impeached.
>
> I served on the House Judiciary Committee which voted to impeach him.
> It did painstaking, bipartisan work in assessing and applying
> constitutional and legal standards to Nixon's actions. Measured by the
> same objective standards as were used in Nixon's case, an impeachment
> inquiry into Bush's actions would be appropriate, and a vote to impeach
> at the end of that inquiry would not be a surprising outcome.
>
> When checks and balances fail to restrain a president from abuses of
> power or from subverting the Constitution, impeachment and removal from
> office is the framers' remedy. It is the tool they gave future
> generations to protect democracy and the rule of law, and not to
> explore it now would be a culpable failure to follow their intent.
> That's why U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., in line to chair of the
> House Judiciary Committee, and some 37 congressional Democrats, already
> have uttered the "i" word and raised the issue of impeachment before
> the election, even though the Democratic leaders didn't want to discuss
> it. Whether out of political strategy or timidity we fail to breathe a
> word about, much less openly debate, impeaching a president so
> committed to executive overreach, Americans -- Republicans and
> Democrats alike -- risk undermining the Constitution and compromising
> our ability to hold future presidents accountable under the law.
>
> Elizabeth Holtzman represented New York in the U.S. House of
> Representatives from 1973 to 1981. She is the co-author, with Cynthia
> L. Cooper, of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for
> Concerned Citizens," (Nation Books, 2006).
>

[Wayne]

Breeder wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Breathing the 'I' word
> - Elizabeth Holtzman
> Friday, November 10, 2006
>
>
> Though Democrats' gains on Tuesday were hard fought, they still pulled
> one big punch during the campaign. Party leaders chose to refrain from
> publicly uttering any "i" words -- investigation, immunity, and above
> all, impeachment -- and to dismiss those who did, for fear of somehow
> galvanizing disaffected GOP voters.
>
> But whether they admit it or not, with a Democratic Party-led Congress,
> President Bush could well become the target of congressional
> investigations, challenges to presidential immunity and eventual
> impeachment inquiries. Big legislative changes are probably not in the
> cards, but willingness to use subpoena power and pursue investigations
> into controversial Bush administration actions and inactions are among
> the main things that will change under Democratic leadership of
> Congress.
>
> Even if impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leaders
> such as Nancy Pelosi (who as the new Speaker of the House will be next
> in line for the presidency after Vice President Dick Cheney), recent
> national polls and impeachment-ballot initiatives in San Francisco,
> Berkeley, and two townships in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., and elsewhere,
> show it is on Americans' table. Leaving aside partisan "gotcha"
> tactics, such as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which fail
> because they lack public support or constitutional basis, Congress has
> been historically reluctant to undertake impeachment, including during
> Watergate. But it has done so when public sentiment reaches a boiling
> point and demands holding a president accountable, as it did in 1973
> after President Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
>
> Today we may be closer to reaching that boiling point again than some
> may think. The Chronicle's online poll question this week surveyed
> readers, 77 percent of whom to date thought impeaching President Bush
> may be constitutionally required if the president were found to have
> abused the power of his office. A recent Newsweek national poll showed
> 53 percent of Americans thought impeachment should be on the agenda
> (either as a "top" or "lower" priority), with 44 percent opposing
> impeachment outright. Compare these numbers to 1998 polls, where an
> average of only 26 percent of Americans were open to or favored
> impeaching Clinton, while an average of 63 percent opposed it outright.
>
>
> Public sentiment for impeachment is strong, and stands to grow stronger
> given a thoughtful discussion of constitutional standards and a full
> and fair inquiry, one that allows the president to explain and defend
> his conduct fully.
>
> But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional
> considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes
> and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and
> removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses
> of power and failures to uphold the law. These include directing
> illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, detainee abuse and
> torture, indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina,
> ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for the Iraq
> occupation, deceiving Congress and Americans about reasons for the war
> in Iraq and possibly seeking to cover up those deceptions by leaking
> misleading classified information. These actions have disturbing
> parallels with offenses for which Nixon was impeached.
>
> I served on the House Judiciary Committee which voted to impeach him.
> It did painstaking, bipartisan work in assessing and applying
> constitutional and legal standards to Nixon's actions. Measured by the
> same objective standards as were used in Nixon's case, an impeachment
> inquiry into Bush's actions would be appropriate, and a vote to impeach
> at the end of that inquiry would not be a surprising outcome.
>
> When checks and balances fail to restrain a president from abuses of
> power or from subverting the Constitution, impeachment and removal from
> office is the framers' remedy. It is the tool they gave future
> generations to protect democracy and the rule of law, and not to
> explore it now would be a culpable failure to follow their intent.
> That's why U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., in line to chair of the
> House Judiciary Committee, and some 37 congressional Democrats, already
> have uttered the "i" word and raised the issue of impeachment before
> the election, even though the Democratic leaders didn't want to discuss
> it. Whether out of political strategy or timidity we fail to breathe a
> word about, much less openly debate, impeaching a president so
> committed to executive overreach, Americans -- Republicans and
> Democrats alike -- risk undermining the Constitution and compromising
> our ability to hold future presidents accountable under the law.
>
> Elizabeth Holtzman represented New York in the U.S. House of
> Representatives from 1973 to 1981. She is the co-author, with Cynthia
> L. Cooper, of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for
> Concerned Citizens," (Nation Books, 2006).

Bush should be impeached for being a ****.

[Bully]

Doggfish wrote:
> Why don't you write a book on being a MORON that can not figure out
> this is a boxing newsgroup? Take your horse**** some where else no
> one here cares about your rambling .

[...]

Then you could write one for not figuring out you just x-posted to several
other groups -- MORON!

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

[Whisper]

Wayne wrote:
>
>
> Bush should be impeached for being a ****.
>



Need more reason that that - 90% of rst would be impeached for that
reason....

[wenquan lee]

Whisper wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bush should be impeached for being a ****.
> >
>
>
>
> Need more reason that that - 90% of rst would be impeached for that
> reason....


as they're not presidents, impeachment is unnecessary - someone could
always drag them out and shoot them instead.

all the best,

wenquan lee

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:13:45 +1100, Whisper <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bush should be impeached for being a ****.
>>
>
>
>
>Need more reason that that - 90% of rst would be impeached for that
>reason....


But only one deserves the death penalty. You.