Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the high-crimes-and-misdemeanors dept.

United States 1657

vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)." The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (-1, Troll)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738567)

Wow! That speaks volumes of our government's efficient use of Congressional time!
So, He literally READ (verbally) it for 4 straight hours into the Congressional record? Geez.
-Someone should tell him about this new fangled-contraption called "text to speech": http://www.google.com/search?q=text+to+speech [google.com]
-What about just sending a tape recording of him reading it? No, no ...I mean email an MP3 instead...
-Better yet!, Could he not have just emailed the *actual speech text* to the Congressional Records Office?
-What about sending the *actual speech text* in letter form via snail mail (with the Congressman's notarized signature and seal) to the Congressional Records Office??

Great! Another fine waste of our precious taxpayer dollars...
...Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (5, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738637)

Actually, I think it's a good idea to force representatives to read out loud any legislation that they propose/endorse. Maybe then they'll actually read the fine details instead of just signing off on legislation that lobbyists wrote up for them.

Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (5, Interesting)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738795)

Well, I agree with your point there.
Now there needs just needs to be a Constitutional Amendment which requires the ENTIRE US TAX CODE to be read into the Congressional Record every single year for it to be legally binding! Of course, that would either require CSPAN to get another satellite or for the tax code to be shortened into the flat tax...

Then again, I was under the impression that "earmarks" were not required to be read into the record either? Whoops... confusing the Congressional Record's purpose with that of Official Congressional Business as Usual...
What? What was its purpose again? ...just a thought.

Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (4, Interesting)

man_ls (248470) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738843)

It would've taken a year to read the USA PATRIOT Act aloud.

Actually, that would've been a good thing -- the people hearing it would've actually known behind a doubt what they were stealing from us all.

You don't seem to understand the point... (5, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738695)

Congressman Dennis Kucinich read off all thirty-five articles of impeachment, each one accompanied by a great deal of supporting evidence, so that the other Congress Critters couldn't avoid hearing about it, and that at least people watching C-SPAN could witness it for themselves (as he probably knew it would get ignored by the traditional media). The vile actions of this administration need to rest on the consciences of all our representatives, whether complicit or just complacent.

If you want to complain about wasting time in Congress, look up which party has done more filibustering in recent years. :)

Re:You don't seem to understand the point... (-1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738813)

You don't seem to understand. No one was in the room with him while he was reading it. He might as well have been reading a story about eating shit in a public library or having butt sex with his wife.

Re:You don't seem to understand the point... (3, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738893)

He might as well have been reading a story about eating shit in a public library or having butt sex with his wife.
You mean that wasn't mentioned among the things the President did?

Really? (3, Informative)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738901)

Then why did he say "The House is not in order"? Who banged the gavel? Your post had no resemblance to fact whatsoever. :p

Re:You don't seem to understand the point... (5, Interesting)

RustinHWright (1304191) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739045)

No. There is still such a thing as a public that pays attention to these things. C-SPAN may not be your favorite viewing but plenty of people watch on a regular basis. Also, after six years of crimes, fraud, and self-dealing I think that we can afford four hours of truth.

If we were to allow Congressman Kucinich ten minutes of airtime for every legally questionable act by the Bush administration, he would still have many hours of airtime left today. Or how about we do it one to one? One minute of airtime for every minute used up in White House press briefings by their fake journalist [wikipedia.org]?

Four hours is a drop in the bucket. My only regret is that Dubya didn't have to stand in a stress position and listen to all of it and then recite it back.

Re:...Brought to you by Carl's Jr. (2)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738713)

I was thinking about this, because it makes 4 minutes per page. Then, I realized that he must have been interrupted during his speech and must have taken at least 2 breaks ...

I also realize that your post is sarcastic, but you need to present your ideas, you can't attack a president without presenting your ideas ... Your idea of an email is absolutely horrible ...

what next ? Let's create http://www.youimpeach.com/ [youimpeach.com] ? :p

Too little too late... (4, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738571)

Impeaching him would have been a better idea 7 years ago. Right now, it would have no real benefit.

Re:Too little too late... (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738647)

Dude, you can't charge somebody with crimes they haven't committed yet.

Re:Too little too late... (4, Insightful)

Wolydarg (1167305) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738667)

If a mass murderer who has been killing people for the past 7 years but has a terminal disease that'll kill him in less than a year is caught, do you let him keep killing people on the fact that he's done it for so long and he's going away soon or do you put him on trial for his crimes? Granted comparing Bush to a mass murderer may be extreme, but a criminal is a criminal, and they should all be treated the same.

Re:Too little too late... (5, Insightful)

Briden (1003105) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738957)

it's completely unfair to compare bush to a mass murderer.
no petty mass murderer has ever been responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people.

Re:Too little too late... (2, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739073)

Granted comparing Bush to a mass murderer may be extreme...
How do you figure?

Re:Too little too late... (5, Insightful)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738681)

The benefit I see from this is that it will go on the permanent record that SOMEONE did know what the fuck was going on in the world and decided to stand up and point it out. Regardless of whether he is booted out of office or not it is now a stain upon his much anticipated "historical legacy".

Re:Too little too late... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738987)

And that someone is Dennis Kucinich?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

He is the biggest nut job in congress. period!

Re:Too little too late... (5, Insightful)

peipas (809350) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738683)

One could argue it is beneficial to tarnish a president's record with an impeachment when warranted by his conduct because it becomes a part of history. Particularly if this conduct is more than perjury over sexual conduct. Clinton's impeachment was a joke.

Re:Too little too late... (1, Troll)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738983)

Clinton became possessed with demons from an evil slutty succubus intern with a craving for cock while Bush killed some Muslims, praise the lord. It's obvious who's going to hell, hence who deserves impeachment.

(Sweet Jebbus on a stick, I hear this from so many people way too often from my conservative hometown. I dunno where American morality is going these days, but it's definitely in a downhill direction.)

Re:Too little too late... (5, Insightful)

binarybum (468664) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738693)

why not? Is Bush incapable of doing further damage to the US in the next 7 months? I think not. Would an impeachment send a message to the current presidential candidates that they need to do something different and that they need to pay attention? I think so. If you had a family member in Iraq, and an impeachment led to a withdrawal of troops, would it have real benefit then?

Re:Too little too late... (5, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738747)

You're dead on, I think. Kucinich's primary motivation for introducing articles of impeachment against Bush (and Cheney in the past) seems to be to stop us from going to war with Iran. That would seriously damage the US!

Re:Too little too late... (1)

Cartmants (729205) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738977)

This does has benefit. It shows that someone is paying attention and that they are thorough in their investigation and they actually know how to say what they want to say! This shows that future Executive Branch seated person will be watched and this is why we have checks and balances.

Pointless and stupid (4, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738573)

Everyone knows this won't pass. Everyone knows that this will get tabled at the first opportunity. Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?

Most likely, in February there will be a Democratic president and a more heavily Democratic congress. That's the time to open up investigations, because that's the time when investigations will actually have teeth.

This is just pointless grandstanding.

Re:Pointless and stupid (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738645)

Not sure why you expect Bush to be gone in 7 months? He has the power to enact martial law and could terminate next years election.

Re:Pointless and stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738711)

Enacting martial law would be pointless. He doesn't have enough supporters in the military to make it realistically happen. Sure he can order them to kill people they don't know, but to turn their guns on their own friends, family and countrymen? not gonna happen.

Re:Pointless and stupid (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738945)

Even a ruthless rat-bastard like Nixon knew he could never pull this off. An insecure coward like Bush would never have the balls to even think about it.

I do agree that this is a waste of time. He'll be gone before anything could really happen. It's more important for Congress to deal with some of the real problems. Unfortunately, in an election yearr that's not going to happen.

Re:Pointless and stupid (1)

Shaman (1148) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739037)

He's already working on it. See the stories about DNA testing and routine police & immigration roadstops going up all over.

Re:Pointless and stupid (5, Insightful)

Blackbrain (94923) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738715)

It needs to be done regardless of how long GW has left in his term. If we are going to pretend that the USA is governed by the rule of law, GW and his cronies need to be held accountable for the way they have violated the constitution. It should be done now to show that the checks and balances built into the system actually work. By not moving on these articles congress is exposing the fraud that the American democratic republic has become, which may be the point Kucinich is trying to make in the first place.

Result: civil war (0, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738985)

If the President is going to be routinely impeached, arrested, and jailed during or after his term, why should any President ever allow another election? Wouldn't it be suicidal for him to do that?

This type of thing is a recipe for civil war. Consider whether you want that.

Re:Pointless and stupid (5, Insightful)

jblake (162981) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738727)

What's the point?

As the American Freedom Campaign put it in an email to members this morning:

"The founders of our country feared more than anything else the prospect of an executive who put his own power and desires above the Constitution. Congress was given the power of impeachment so that it could remove any president who committed the high crime of violating the Constitution during his (or her) term in office.

A strong case can be made that no president in the history of this country is more deserving of impeachment than George W. Bush. If he is not impeached, the bar for impeachment will have been raised so high that it might as well no longer exist. Future presidents will know that they can violate the Constitution at will, confident in the fact that Congress does not have the courage as an institution to do anything about it.

We cannot allow this to happen."

That's about as simple as it gets. Even if Bush only have seven months left, Congress has to set an example and exert its authority.

Re:Pointless and stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738793)

The point is that this country was founded on taking responsibility for ones actions and when failing to do so you are HELD responsible by the state and failing THAT, you are held responsible by the PEOPLE.

It's high time we showed the world that we again are a nation of responsibility and arrest the criminals that have commandeered the highest reaches of our government. Sure he won't be president in 7 months, but he still needs to be held accountable for illegal actions taken while in office.

Disqualification from office (5, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738857)

>Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?

There's a value beyond the symbolic one. Article I, Section 3 allows the outcome of impeachment and conviction to include "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". We've had convicted felons re-hired into the Executive branch before. Impeachment and conviction could remove the risk of something like that happening.

Re:Pointless and stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738943)

more heavily Democratic congress
read: more comprehensively under the control of the democratic party. You're unlikely to see more democracy.

Re:Pointless and stupid (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738963)

What's the point?

Demonstrating to citizens that *someone* in government recognizes even the president must obey the law and that the only thing preventing a true accounting is the remaining republicans in office.

poor poor Kucinich (-1, Flamebait)

natedubbya (645990) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738587)

Hahaha Dennis Kucinich ... he must be having campaign withdrawal. Nobody is giving him enough attention anymore. Of course, nobody paid attention to him when he was running for president either.

Silliness (-1, Flamebait)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738589)

This kind of thing was stupid when Clinton was impeached, and it is stupid today. I hate GWB's assault on the Constitution as much as anyone (I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU). But this impeachment attempt is just makes my side look stupid.

Re:Silliness (4, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738675)

I don't understand why this is silly. If "GWB's assault on the Constitution" doesn't merit impeachment, what does?

Re:Silliness (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738827)

I don't understand why this is silly. If "GWB's assault on the Constitution" doesn't merit impeachment, what does?
a blowjob.

Re:Silliness (1)

Elrond, Duke of URL (2657) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738703)

Is it stupid because you disagree with the terms, or stupid because it will accomplish nothing?

In the latter case, is it still worth the effort to read it before Congress or are you suggesting that this act of grandstanding actually hurts the position (that Bush is bad and needs impeaching)?

Unless there is some real harm from the action, I say go for it. Realistically, nothing will come of it now, though that may change come February. Raising these issues again and again may annoy some, but it's the only way to force discussion and that is something sorely needed.

Re:Silliness (1)

Malekin (1079147) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739035)

If you honestly believe any nation's politics is a game of two "sides" then you deserve the American political system.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738615)

First Post by myspace.com/fortress91

Setting the standard (2, Interesting)

dibblda (882455) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738625)

Well at least we know what future presidents will be allowed to get away with if we don't impeach the current one.

Re:Setting the standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738751)

Yep. They can get away with murder. But blow jobs are unacceptable.

God damn the USA.

History will do more to condemn Bush (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738649)

than Kucinich ever could. Many historians consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents in US history. And the funny thing is that Bush still believes that history will prove him RIGHT.....

Plus, the Democrats are looking to rout the Republicans in November at least in the Senate and House(President is still a bit up in the air), doing something showboating like this can only benefit the Republicans.

Re:History will do more to condemn Bush (0)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739097)

"Worst" in what sense? He's been remarkably effective as a leader. I mean, why would we be talking about impeachment if he was the incompetent bumblefuck that everyone paints him as? If you're saying 'most morally reprehensible president', then he's probably pretty high on the list.

Way too little, way too late (0, Flamebait)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738651)

Kucinich just wants to look like he gives a shit. If he had the balls to actually do this, he'd have done it years ago.

Kucinich should know the law (0, Troll)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738653)

If Kucinich weren't so busy on his personal crusades, he'd understand the mistake in this logic:

President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,'
That's nice and all, but all that is needed is approval from the Attorney General, which I'm willing to bet every paycheck from here on out that he did exactly that. Nothing illegal to see here, move along please.

Oh yeah, as if the President has time to personally spy on anyone is pretty laughable as well.

Re:Kucinich should know the law (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738867)

A president is responsible for the actions that he directs other to take, to the point that it isn't laughable to describe the actions as if he took them himself.

Re:Kucinich should know the law (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738949)

The attorney general isn't a court. He's generally considered more of an attorney(aka lawyer, person who pleads a case in a court), than a judge.

Re:Kucinich should know the law (4, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738969)

>all that is needed is approval from the Attorney General

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, requires approval from a judge for eavesdropping.

Even if the Attorney General could repeal laws, in this case the Justice Department had decided the program was illegal and Ashcroft refused to sign off on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html [washingtonpost.com]

For the readers from Europe ... (3, Interesting)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738659)

Can someone from the US elaborate on the process of validation for an impeachment ? I live in Europe and would like to know if any Congressman can charge the US president with impeachment and who is gonna vote to decide if there was an impeachment, would there be a possibility for an appeal then and how much time would the whole procedure take ?

Some points are intruiging for me, such as:

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter
As the UN is not particularly an US insitution, can you charge the US president for impeachment for not following the UN charter ?

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (5, Informative)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738803)

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin826.htm [usatoday.com] How impeachment works: The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of impeachment - the constitutional equivalent of an indictment - and gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments. The first step in removing the president is the approval of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee. A majority vote of the full House is then needed to impeach and send the case to trial in the Senate. The chief justice of the United States presides at the trial, and a two-thirds majority of those senators present is needed to convict. Conviction results in automatic removal from office. Most of the house and two thirds of the senate are needed, and they have to decise that he has committed a crime. If so, the person being impeached will be removed from office and the next in command takes the post. *shudders at a Cheney presidency*

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738921)

From the time we impeached the last president. The average idiots around me always try to tell me that Clinton wasn't impeached. Clinton was impeached and it didn't get us anything.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (3, Informative)

ral8158 (947954) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739063)

Clinton was impeached. Impeachment simply means the accusations were raised; it means that there is a possibility of removal from presidency. The senate has to hold a trial to determine the president's fate AFTER he's been impeached.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (3, Insightful)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738807)

The House of Representatives would have to vote to impeach then the Senate would hold the actual trial. There's no actual chance of this happening right now though, it's just grandstanding.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738971)

Any congressman can take to the floor and request that congress impeach the president. If they care, congress would vote on the impeachment. They won't. If they did vote to impeach, the procedure would take a while, there would essentially be a trial (you could probably look up the process that Clinton went through fairly easily).

As far as violating the UN charter, the president is required to respect treaties that the US has entered into.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (5, Informative)

i_love_unix (1123543) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738989)

IANACL (I am not a Constitutional lawyer) but the Impeachment process goes something like this:

1.) One or more Congressmen in the House of Representatives present the Articles of Impeachment for consideration.
2.) The House considers the Articles and says "yea" or "nay"; A yes vote (a simple majority is required) acts like an official indictment against the President. This is the actual "Impeachment" that everyone talks about. A common misunderstanding is that Impeachment means removal from office. That takes place in step three.
3.) If impeached, the Senate acts as the jury in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If convicted (this part requires a 2/3ds majority of Senators), the President is then removed from office.

Two Presidents have ever been impeached. Andrew Johnson (succeeded Lincoln after his assassination) and Bill Clinton. Johnson resigned before his Senate trial and Clinton was aquitted. Richard Nixon was never officially impeached, but he resigned after it became clear that not only would be be impeached, but that the Senate would remove him from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States [wikipedia.org] The Wikipedia entry has more info.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (2, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739003)

As the UN is not particularly an US insitution, can you charge the US president for impeachment for not following the UN charter ?

Yes. Any treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate carries the full force of law. The U.S. is a member of the U.N., created by a multinational treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Any action the U.N. takes in accordance with that treaty carries the weight of U.S. law (but of course this is only relevant in the U.S.).

This does not stop our country from thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions, however. Who is going to enforce it?

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739019)

There's no provision in the Constitution for an appeal, getting impeachment to the floor would require going through the Judiciary Committee, and there's a provision in the Constitution that says treaties carry the force of law. That would include the UN Charter.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (1)

burris (122191) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739059)

As the UN is not particularly an US insitution, can you charge the US president for impeachment for not following the UN charter ?

The US Constitution has a clause known as the "supremacy clause" which makes the Constitution and all treaties "the supreme Law of the Land" and "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." So yes, violating a valid treaty such as the UN Charter an impeachable offense.

Re:For the readers from Europe ... (1)

fondacio (835785) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739081)

I'm not exactly an expert on US constitutional law (and I'm a European like you), but I do seem to remember that international treaties are generally considered to be the "law of the land" in the USA in accordance with its Constitution and longstanding jurisprudence. Violating the UN Charter would therefore automatically be a violation of US law, although I don't know if this is sufficient basis for impeachment, so I hope a knowledgeable US contributor can elaborate on this.

In any case, in terms of international law, invading a sovereign nation in violation of the UN Charter (in particular article 2(4)) may well fulfill the requirements of the international crime of aggression (which has not yet been defined, so individuals cannot yet be charged with it at international law at the moment). It is not very likely that Bush will be charged with this in any country, but there is a real risk that members of his administration, including possibly the C-in-C himself, will be prosecuted in some countries for war crimes, specifically torture in violation of the Convention against Torture and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, for what happened in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. International law provides various bases for jurisdiction outside the US. And Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment may prove useful in establishing the case for the prosecutors.

My opinion (4, Insightful)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738673)

Shouldn't count for much, as I'm not american, but impeaching this president might set a precedent and send a warning to newer presidents to tread lightly or be out of a job.

Heh... (1)

Fayn (1003629) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738679)

It seems like everyone is just dicking around with the election by pulling stunts such as this. There's no way this will go through.

Any one have any info on the elections Charges? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738705)

I'm not familiar with that allegation. I think he would have been better served to have limited the charges to a core set that are clear cut. Its perhaps a good idea to have the charges entered into the congressional record, but I don't think its going to go much farther than that. I don't think most democrats want to go to that extreme with so little time left. In general I think we should reserve impeachment for when the normal term limit end isn't soon enough. I believe any crimes can still be prosecuted after officials leave office, which also diminishes the possibility of pardons.

He should have just kept the important ones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738729)

Most of the articles are stupid stuff that does not involve breaking the law.

Bwahaha! (-1, Troll)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738743)

Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich...
Instead of banging his beautiful wife [wikipedia.org] (that no one is sure how he landed), he pissed his time away kicking a lame duck.

Re:Bwahaha! (1)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738965)

What kind of a smart, beautiful woman with an interest in world conflict and politics wouldn't want to marry an easily guided politician and aim to steer him towards positions of political clout? She's probably closer to the front lines of politics where she is now than she'd be in Zimbabwe, Iraq, or China... longer life span, too.

Sex vs. Violence (5, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738779)

How interesting is it that attempting to impeach a president because he got a BJ and lied about it gets so much more publicity than one who kills thousands in an unjust war, breaks the constitution, and effectively turns a "free" country into a police-state. /me weeps for the future

Re:Sex vs. Violence (4, Insightful)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738967)

I highly agree. To me this is worse than watergate and yet both houses in congress sit by and do nothing. Really every representative in congress who does nothing should not be voted back. They are as much to blame as the president, maybe even more so because they gave him most of his power. But if G.W. got a blowjob by Condolezza (SIC) Rice there he would suddenly be impeached like crazy.

stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738783)

here goes the anti bush slashdot band wagon again, bush screwed up, we all know that, impeachable? no, Kucinich is just a nut trying to get PR and thats why the major media outlets are not giving it more then a brief mention with a laugh at the end. Seriously this has little to nothing to do with tech, leave it for the smear sites and put your political beliefs on the back burner when you are posting stories for slashdot.

Pointless (1)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738797)

As a practical matter, impeachment is impossible. Whether Bush's actions were or weren't illegal is beside the point. Impeachment is an inherently political process, not a strictly legal one. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. The Democrats would have a hard time getting enough Republican votes for conviction if Bush murdered a decorated war hero on national television, and there's no chance at all with what he's actually done. The best they can hope for is to shine enough light onto what he's done that anyone associated with his crimes becomes a political pariah.

Re:Pointless (1)

Shaman (1148) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739095)

It's anything but pointless. Allow Bush to set the precedent of what a president should be and it will only get worse.

Violating the Constitution is a good reason (3, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738809)

Despite the howls from the far left, Bush didn't actually "lie and people died". Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, own report proves that. For example,

  • On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
  • On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
  • On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
  • On weapons of mass destruction overall? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

The list goes on, and Rockfeller's committee could only say, over and over, "Generally substantiated by intelligence information," though there was some exaggeration (which isn't the same as a lie).

HOWEVER! Spying on citizens, arresting and holding without probable cause or a trial, wiretapping -- basically using our Constitution to wipe his ass -- now that's a good enough reason to impeach him and the majority of assholes sitting on their fat asses in Washington DC (both Democrats and Republicans).

Re:Violating the Constitution is a good reason (4, Insightful)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738991)

Point one: False. He (and Cheney) KNEW it was false. Clearly a lie.

Point two: False. He (and Cheney) KNEW it was false. Clearly a lie.

Point three: False. He (and Cheney) KNEW it was false. Clearly a lie.

Point four: False. He (and Cheney) KNEW it was false. Clearly a lie.

There is plenty of evidence suggesting they knew it was all false, and were manipulating the evidence in an attempt to find a reason to attack Iraq. It was not only all a base fabrication, it was an intentional, planned out, thoroughly well executed fabrication. I do agree with you on the rest though, there are plenty of reasons to impeach outside of his outright misleading of the American people. Did we get a FOIA on the Kennedy assassination yet? It's pretty clear that this whole "democracy" has been a ludicrous facade since that fateful day.

No reason to impeach Bush... (1)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738811)

There's no reason for the Democrats to impeach Bush, since Bush makes the Republicans look bad. If Bush suddenly manages to make himself look good, the Democrats can drag out the impeachment stick and drag him forcibly through the mud.

The presidential race is already tight enough, so any Republicans with a conscience won't bring up impeachment, since they would risk jeopardizing their own re-election bids.

Most importantly, if Bush and Cheney were impeached, then Pelosi, a Democrat, would take over and inherit a huge mess of unsolvable problems. Which would make the Democrats look bad before the election. Better to let a Republican president stew in a bad economy and an unpopular war.

D'OH! (2, Funny)

kermit1221 (75994) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738833)

I hope I'm not the only one who heard Homer Simpson in my head when I read "Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)".

What the future holds (1)

CorporalKlinger (871715) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738835)

It's concerning that so many are so quick to dismiss these as a political stunt by a talented, albeit annoying, senator. I see no problem with holding people accountable, regardless the amount of time that's elapsed since a serious crimes were committed. If the Congress would grow some teeth and start investigating the DOJ for corruption, I think the DOJ would stop pussyfooting around and hold Bush's feet to the fire. It has been proven time and again - those world leaders that are royal screw-ups usually are held accountable after they leave office. I wouldn't be surprised that once a new Attorney General is at the helm, there will be plenty of investigations launched into the various violations of Constitutional and legal principles committed by the current administration. GWB only has 7 months left in office. Once he's gone, it will be interesting to see which civil rights group will step up and begin to personally deconstruct the last administration through legal battles that will continue long after our generation is gone. If Bush is no longer president, he no longer holds the strings that control the prosecutorial branch of our government - and a new president is, of course, allowed to declassify any document(s) he or she sees fit, even if they would send Bush to prison to do some hard time. I don't think it will happen (too much politics involved)... but it's nice to dream.

Kettle Calling (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738839)

So what if he's impeached? Will that solve anything? Will the other entire government then turn around and impeach itself? Will voters stop trying to rob each other via the ballot box, and vote for Constitutional candidates? No. Have fun with this while not actually doing anything about the underlying issue...

The very best thing about this story... (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738877)

Is that I finally have a good reason to use the phrase "Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D'OH!)" in casual conversation.

Taking the blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23738883)

Part of being the group leader is taking the blame, even if its not your fault. Basically the masses don't care if its personally Bush's fault, just as long as somebody takes the blame. Sure it would be better if the right individual people were judged, but its just easier for people to sit back and take it out on one person.

I don't apply this to just Bush, but everything else too.

See now, I did learn something from Final Fantasy 8...

Kucinich... (5, Funny)

crhylove (205956) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738905)

... is awesome. He's the only candidate I would have bothered driving to the polls for, despite the fact that when I got there diebold would have just erased my vote.

DK The Attention Whore (2, Funny)

pvjr (184849) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738929)

How to get attention:

1: Marry hot wife.
2: Run for Presisent
3: Look for UFO's
4: Constantly throw in use legislation that no one is interested in.

Really, there are more intersting things to be politcal about....

Going to war (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738955)

I sure hope he realizes he can't impeach the President for going to war, since Congress votes to go to war. I would assume someone in Congress would realize this.

If the article is based on lying, you'd have to prove the person knowingly lied. And lying isn't against the law, unless you're talking perjury. And I though Democrats didn't think perjury was impeachable.

That being said, I'm not a Bush lover by any means, and I find it fairly interesting that he is being brought up on charges of spying on citizens. Whether or not that is illegal is debatable, even if it is reprehensible, and again, we're talking about bills that have been passed repeatedly by a bipartisan Congress. In Bush is guilty, again, so is everyone who voted on those measures.

Thusly, the impeachment isn't going anywhere.

nobody in congress seriously wants to impeach (4, Interesting)

spirit_fingers (777604) | more than 5 years ago | (#23738981)

While I applaud Dennis Kucinich for introducing his articles of impeachment in the House, I also realize that there's zero chance that the House will do anything but sit on them. The current Congress is filled with chickenshit liars and cowards. These are mostly the same spineless toadies who voted for Bush's fascist Patriot Act and his bogus Iraq War. There's no way they're going to impeach him. If they did, they'd only be implicating themselves. After all, they colluded with Bush to make it all happen. They rubber stamped his belligerence at almost every turn, most Democrats included. And to the ones who said they didn't know that Bush was lying to them when they voted for the Iraq war, I say BULLSHIT. The rest of us knew. The rest of us sat in disbelief in front on our TVs every night while the Big Lie was played out for us. A few of us protested against the inevitable nightmare. The Congress and the corporate media ignored us. And only now, when it's popular and risk-free to do so, do they cry foul.

Never gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23739005)

Speaker Pelosi said so [nwsource.com]

What a Joke (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739015)

Dennis Kucinich is such a joke and a waste of time with is posturing. Bush isn't going to get impeached any more than Clinton was ever impeached - and for precisely the same reason. The president's own political party in each case will block it in the Senate, provided it ever gets there to start with. Kucinich is a fool, and has just demonstrated it to the world!

It's a mix (1, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23739055)

There are some potentially serious charges that might warrant impeachment; domestic spying, for instance.

But it's a shame that those are mixed in with whackjob conspiracy accusations like fixing elections.

Lincoln (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23739071)

As Lincoln said "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."
Between the Civil War and Western Expansion Lincoln committed many of the same illegal acts attributed to Bush, same with FDR during WWII.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account