Will Bush be impeached??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


And that law is . . ???

FISA

[Zkribbler]

Ah, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Presumably you are referring to the provision that requires the Prez to go to the secret court within three days after a search to get a search warrant. And the Prez says that's too cumbersome, so he won't so that he can protect the nation.

Okay, that's be a violation of the law requires by my OP to be the legal figleaf.

If his "surge" proves to be as counterproductive as I fear, that will set the political stage of his support collapsing, causing the motivation.

Then, a goodly number of Republican Senators need to see they are on a sinking ship and so defect the pro-impeachment faction.

[Berzerker]

The reality is, Bush and Iraq shows what happens when Congress is partisan (political party loyalty over facts) and asleep or scared (wasn't that supposed to be a lesson of Vietnam?). I keep hearing most of the people in Congress didn't even read the NIE (intel reports), alot of caveats like "might" or "could" magically became certainties in the hands of the people telling us to die for them.

And that law is . . ???

I'll bet there are 100s of laws, impeachable laws... But I dont spend much time memorising military or civilian codes I imagine quite a few state laws too, and how could one argue that the victims of his fraud dont have grounds to sue. Thats what Cindy Sheehan should do, start building a case to prove fraud was employed to send her son off to Iraq.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


FISA

Which until otherwise proven provides no such requirements for the president to get warrants if wiretapping occurs outside US boundaries, minimally.

This even before the commnder in chief perogatives questions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


So Poindexter's admissions?

McFarlane's guilt-ridden suicide attempt?

Bush's pardon of Weinberger?

You're spouting nonsense, Ned. As usual.

Tell me, Rufus, what they were indicted on?

Come on?

Right -- lying under oath to Congress. The coverup of what they were doing.

No one was convicted of a substantive crime either for selling arms to Iran or for giving that money to the Contras.

Reagan's biggest problem was that he knew that we were selling arms to Iran in order to get our hostages free, even at a time when he was saying that he would never negotiate with terrorists. He was lying, but to protect the negotiations.

Ditto all the testimony before Congress.

But the Dems cared little for the good reasons for the lies. They simply wanted to bring Reagan and Bush down. They behaved like maddened sharks with blood in the water. Just like they did in '73-'74 with Watergate.

In my view, the Dems caused substantial damage to the Republic in both Watergate an in the Iran Contra investigations. In this, they are no better than what happened back in the days of McCarthyism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by azzaman333
Bush is a monkey, who likes to eat peaches.

In another thread I noted the consistent pattern from the left of making personsal attacks rather than substantive arguments. We really need a thread on this. Is this a form of mental desease, immaturity or is it planned?

[Arrian]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


Tell me, Rufus, what they were indicted on?

Come on?

Right -- lying under oath to Congress. The coverup of what they were doing.

No one was convicted of a substantive crime either for selling arms to Iran or for giving that money to the Contras.

You wrote that, Ned. read it. It isn't accurate -- as usual; Poindexter was convicted -- not just indicted -- of not just perjury but conspiracy, obstruction of justice, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence.)\ But read it anyway.

You're saying no one was convicted of selling arms to the contras; they were indicted for the coverup of what they were doing.

And, therefore, what were they doing?

Substantial crimes were commited by high-level presidential advisors. knowledge of the crimes extended to other cabinet members and probably the Vice President. Asking about the President's role, under such circumstances, isn't a "witchhunt"; it's due diligence. As a lawyer, one would think you could grasp that.

[Ned]

Rufus, I think I am right on this. All the charges and convictions for everyone but North were about lying to Congress, destroying documents and conspiring to do so.

But, the only conviction North got concerning lying to Congress and the converup.

Everyones convictions were reversed, of course.

But the problem in all this is that Congress was asking the president and his people to testify publicly about secret foreign policy initiatives. They were trying to influence, control and/or stop US foreign policy and were treading where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they control the purse. There is a reason foreign policy is under the president and Iran Contra illustrates why perfectly.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned

Reagan's biggest problem was that he knew that we were selling arms to Iran in order to get our hostages free, even at a time when he was saying that he would never negotiate with terrorists. He was lying, but to protect the negotiations.

What? The Iranians didn't realize they were negotiating with us???

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ned]But the problem in all this is that Congress was asking the president and his people to testify publicly about secret foreign policy initiatives. They were trying to influence, control and/or stop US foreign policy and were treading where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they control the purse. There is a reason foreign policy is under the president and Iran Contra illustrates why perfectly.[/q]

Er... Ned? Members of the administration were SELLING arms without Congressional approval, where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they "control" foriegn policy.

Basically you are saying any branch of government shouldn't investigate breaches into its powers?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
But the problem in all this is that Congress was asking the president and his people to testify publicly about secret foreign policy initiatives. They were trying to influence, control and/or stop US foreign policy and were treading where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they control the purse. There is a reason foreign policy is under the president and Iran Contra illustrates why perfectly.

Congress does control the power of the purse. It passed a law saying no more U.S. money to the Contras. Ollie & Co. then began selling U.S. military equipment (which is another power reserved to Congress) and using that money to fund the Contras.

Basically, Reagan was violating the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress's spending powers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ned]But the problem in all this is that Congress was asking the president and his people to testify publicly about secret foreign policy initiatives. They were trying to influence, control and/or stop US foreign policy and were treading where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they control the purse. There is a reason foreign policy is under the president and Iran Contra illustrates why perfectly.[/q]

Er... Ned? Members of the administration were SELLING arms without Congressional approval, where they have no legal right to tread even though they have the power because they "control" foriegn policy.

Basically you are saying any branch of government shouldn't investigate breaches into its powers?

Members? Reagan was fully aware of the arms sales for the purpose of freeing the hostages. He said so on TV.

Congress has the power to ask the executive for reports. They have the power of the purse which gives them indirect power over anything the president does. But when they start directly interfering in foreign policy (or the command of our troops), that is where Congress goes wrong in principle.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Congress does control the power of the purse. It passed a law saying no more U.S. money to the Contras. Ollie & Co. then began selling U.S. military equipment (which is another power reserved to Congress) and using that money to fund the Contras.

Basically, Reagan was violating the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress's spending powers.

Z, that's not what happened and that is not the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Congress does control the power of the purse. It passed a law saying no more U.S. money to the Contras. Ollie & Co. then began selling U.S. military equipment (which is another power reserved to Congress) and using that money to fund the Contras.

Basically, Reagan was violating the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress's spending powers.

Bingo. Ned, basically, you are spewing bull**** once again. Trying to castigate Congress for doing its ****ing job. And trying to inflate the Executive for overreaching.