House Judiciary might actually hold Bush impeachment hearings afterall

[DroppinScience]

I'm not holding my breath for this to actually happen, but this is a bright spot. Finally someone might be interested in listening to Kucinich for a change.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10274/

Published on Thursday, July 10, 2008 by Politico.com
Pelosi Says House Judiciary May Hold Hearings On Kucinich Impeachment Resolution
by John Bresnahan

WASHINGTON - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

To read the resolution.

Kucinich is expected to offer a “privileged resolution” this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Pelosi has said previously that impeachment “was off the table,” so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush, although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has only six months left in this term.

“This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi told reporters. “Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject.”

Pelosi added: “My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee.”

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee had no immediate comment when asked whether Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman, planned hearings on Kucinich’s impeachment resolutions.

© 2008 Politico.com

[saz]

the dems need more people like him (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1463341016/bctid1691277316).

[Documad]

I haven't seen proof that would cause me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush committed a crime. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to vote for impeachment if I had a vote. I see that he was a dumbass, I see that he had a political agenda, I see that he disagreed with the assessments of some people and followed the competing assessments of his advisors, I see that much of what he and his advisors believed turned out to be wrong. Where is the proof that he knew it was wrong at the time? Did he commit a crime or was he just grossly negligent? I don't believe that he is criminally liable for all of the acts of his underlings.

None of that matters, because the people who want to impeach him do not have the votes. Clinton committed the crime of perjury and it was proved to my satisfaction but he was not kicked out of office and his enemies' failure to get him actually helped his reputation. Impeachment would be a big waste of time without the votes. It would strengthen Bush and McCain and hurt Obama.

In my gut, I have this sense that Bush and his advisors thought they were doing the right thing. Even though I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for, I couldn't vote to impeach our president for things he did using his broad discretion, in the performance of one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It would also be a horrible precedent.

[yeahwho]

In my gut, I have this sense that Bush and his advisors thought they were doing the right thing. Even though I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for, I couldn't vote to impeach our president for things he did using his broad discretion, in the performance of one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It would also be a horrible precedent.
Yeah but can we still get our money back? I mean c'mon WTF?

[Bob]

In my gut, I have this sense that Bush and his advisors thought they were doing the right thing. Even though I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for, I couldn't vote to impeach our president for things he did using his broad discretion, in the performance of one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It would also be a horrible precedent.

damn you...i want to disagree with you but that's such an incredibly...reasonable thing to say

[Whatitis]

I haven't seen proof that would cause me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush committed a crime. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to vote for impeachment if I had a vote. I see that he was a dumbass, I see that he had a political agenda, I see that he disagreed with the assessments of some people and followed the competing assessments of his advisors, I see that much of what he and his advisors believed turned out to be wrong. Where is the proof that he knew it was wrong at the time? Did he commit a crime or was he just grossly negligent? I don't believe that he is criminally liable for all of the acts of his underlings.

None of that matters, because the people who want to impeach him do not have the votes. Clinton committed the crime of perjury and it was proved to my satisfaction but he was not kicked out of office and his enemies' failure to get him actually helped his reputation. Impeachment would be a big waste of time without the votes. It would strengthen Bush and McCain and hurt Obama.

In my gut, I have this sense that Bush and his advisors thought they were doing the right thing. Even though I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for, I couldn't vote to impeach our president for things he did using his broad discretion, in the performance of one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It would also be a horrible precedent.

Spot on!

[Ali]

Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and all the others who had a hand in precipitating Afghanistan, Iraq and other Crimes Against Humanity in the Quest for Oil should be shipped off to the Hague as soon as possible.

Impeaching Bush a few months before he's due to step down is just pathetic.

[saz]

I haven't seen proof that would cause me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush committed a crime. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to vote for impeachment if I had a vote. I see that he was a dumbass, I see that he had a political agenda, I see that he disagreed with the assessments of some people and followed the competing assessments of his advisors, I see that much of what he and his advisors believed turned out to be wrong. Where is the proof that he knew it was wrong at the time? Did he commit a crime or was he just grossly negligent? I don't believe that he is criminally liable for all of the acts of his underlings.

None of that matters, because the people who want to impeach him do not have the votes. Clinton committed the crime of perjury and it was proved to my satisfaction but he was not kicked out of office and his enemies' failure to get him actually helped his reputation. Impeachment would be a big waste of time without the votes. It would strengthen Bush and McCain and hurt Obama.

In my gut, I have this sense that Bush and his advisors thought they were doing the right thing. Even though I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for, I couldn't vote to impeach our president for things he did using his broad discretion, in the performance of one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It would also be a horrible precedent.


the illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of iraq for one was an international war crime, which incidently is the equivalent of germany's invasion of poland in 1939. this also involved the repeated lies regarding the justification for this crime: first it was wmds, then it was direct ties to al-qaeda, then the central front in the war on terror. as we know this has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 american soldiers, approximately a million iraqi citizens, and a massive refugee exodus from iraq.

there's also illegal wiretapping, and the eavesdropping of all private communications of american citizens. this was and is completely illegal, but of course now the democrats have no problem going along with this and enabling bush and the republicans, because just like them, they have no qualms about taking money from telecommunication corporations while selling out their basic principles.

and georgetown university law professor and legal scholar jonathan turley sees proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNh8sPyFKD0) beyond a reasonable doubt that bush engaged in unlawful conduct.

oh yeah, there's also the issue of a torture program which is a direct violation of american law.

turley: it is clear the president ordered a federal crime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7fxn5W-JM0&feature=related), he ordered war crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXpavT5RCP8&feature=related), and that war crimes prosecutions are possible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3PvIFx-WDE&feature=related).

here's more with turley on bush's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRVI1fat_g&feature=related) crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bjwc9d0nFk).