15 Responses to “Articles of Impeachment Introduced in the House”

1. greg Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 10:18 am

   1 Pelosi I’m pretty sure other people have presented similar charges against Bush in Congress since about 2003. To be fair to Britney’s vag, this story has just as little relevancy to America. I think Kucinich believes every word that he said, and I probably agree with some of it, but I can’t help but feel that this is little more than a publicity stunt for him.

2. Jami Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am

   2 Author Comment Ah, thanks for the correction. Yeah, I think you’re right. This smells of publicity whore. But it would be an interesting conversation to force them to have.

3. Cortharis Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am

   3 Nothing will probably come of this for some time. It’s just something that has needed to be said based on another report that came out recently. Given what Scott McClennan(?) has said in his book and what he plans to testify, it will gain some momentum. Things really wouldn’t get underway until after the current administration has left office.

4. greg Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am

   4 “Things really wouldn’t get underway until after the current administration has left office.” From what I understand, you can’t impeach a non-sitting public official. I suppose you could attempt to arrest him after he steps down, or file a civil suit against him, but good luck with that.

5. epoch9 Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am

   5 comedy option: since 2008 seems to be the year for Anonymous to be civil minded, maybe someone could try to get them on board? enough youtube vids, and rickrolls could get this some decent coverage.

6. Bob Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

   6 Impeachment does not mean “kicked out of office”…. by the time they get through all this he isn’t going to be President any more. What does the public think, that he will resign from office to prevent this from happening? He’s out of here in less than a year! Impeachment is a waste of time at this point. Heck! Clienton was Impeached but not charged… he was acquitted/found not guilty… http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

7. Tugboat Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   7 At this point, this is a complete waste of time. Nothing is going to change, and no one big is going to jail. I’m way more worried about getting a long-term energy plan working that doesn’t impair this dustball’s long-term survivability for humans, or in working to keep some jobs in the US, or trying to maintain some semblance of civil liberties than I am about fekking Denny’s little showboating BS. Congress needs to get off its collective @$$ and work to fix things, not get distracted with stupid sh**. Sorry for those who thing that Bush is skating, or that it’s a horrible thing. There are bigger concerns than a lame-duck president who will be a non-issue (power-wise) in less than a year.

8. kindless Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

   8 A bit late imo

9. SteveMB Posted: Jun 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

   9 This is more a statement-for-the-record thing than something that anybody takes seriously.

10. BAMikeyD Posted: Jun 11th, 2008 at 1:52 am

    10 Can’t you get jail time from an impeachment verdict?

11. Poorboy Posted: Jun 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    11 Let’s say this happened in early 2007, would you still want to impeach Bush knowing full well Cheney would be president? Those republicans thought of everything.

12. Tugboat Posted: Jun 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am

    12 To me, this is more than a ‘for-the-record-thing’… it’s symbolic of how the new majority wasted a whole lot of time pissing away their momentum and accomplishing jack sh**. All that stuff they said they were going to do int heir first hundred hours; utter rubbish, and it became more obvious that they weren’t going to do anything when they qualified it to the ‘first hundred hours of debate’, vice the first hundred business hours. ALL politicians are the same. D or R, they want power and money.

13. Jami Posted: Jun 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am

    13 Author Comment Can’t argue there. The system really exists these days to perpetuate itself. Politicians aren’t thinking of the people. They’re thinking of the next election. Both sides are so completely fucked at this point, it’s difficult to be optimistic about the future.

14. SteveMB Posted: Jun 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am

    14 @BAMikeyD: No — the only effects of impeachment and conviction are 1)removal from office and 2)disqualification from future federal office. Theoretically, impeachment could be followed by criminal prosecution (it’s not “double jeopardy” precisely because impeachment is not a criminal prosecution), but that’s a separate issue.

15. DaVincisGhost Posted: Jun 12th, 2008 at 4:41 am

    15 It’s entirely possible that Kucinich is filing the articles of impeachment this late in the game to attempt to save the Democratic party’s proverbial tookus in the public’s eye. It’s also possible that he could be on the payroll to make Dick Cheney acting President. If I’m remembering the constitution correctly, were this to happen, Tricky Dicky would then be the incumbent President of the United States. This in turn would nudge John McCain out of his bid for the White House and set the November election as Cheney vs. Obama rather than McCain vs. Obama. Given the Bush/Cheney track record of rigging false election results, there’s no doubt in my mind that Cheney would figure out a way to steal the presidency regardless of what the popular vote may end up being. He’s also just tweaked in the head enough to declare martial law under the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. and just plain seize power by suspending the election under time of “war” (i.e. the never-ending bullcrap war on terror).