AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If the Dems tried to impeach Bush for something that isnt a crime, they too would suffer at the polls. I suppose Dems feel they have a "slam dunk" case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I suppose Dems feel they have a "slam dunk" case They saw how much trouble the Republicans had with Clinton. They're not going to procede with this unless they have a real chance to impeach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 "I suppose the only way wiretapping could have possibly been legal is if we were still officially at war." Gee. Thanks for that learned treatise on Constitutional law Justice Blackmun :chug: Exactly how many years of law school did you attend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 "I suppose the only way wiretapping could have possibly been legal is if we were still officially at war."Gee. Thanks for that learned treatise on Constitutional law Justice Blackmun :chug: Exactly how many years of law school did you attend? Zero. Thanks for the constructive comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Exactly. You have ZERO training in Constitutional Law- yet you make totally facile claims about what the President can and can not do? But even though some of us on here are attorneys, or in the military, or work in the intelligence field we are supposed to take your arguments seriously?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 "I suppose the only way wiretapping could have possibly been legal is if we were still officially at war."Gee. Thanks for that learned treatise on Constitutional law Justice Blackmun :chug: Exactly how many years of law school did you attend? Look who's talking. Another quality, thought-provoking comment from AFC. Give him a round of applause, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 There are good reasons why presidential powers have never been clearly defined by the courts despite many opportunities(recently Hamdi) ,one of which is to leave the executive branch room to deal with changing times and dealing with foriegn powers and threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I suppose the only way wiretapping could have possibly been legal is if we were still officially at war. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=suppose Suppose: 1) To assume to be true or real for the sake of argument or explanation. 2) To believe, especially on uncertain or tentative grounds. 3) To consider to be probable or likely. 4) To imply as an antecedent condition. 5) To consider as a suggestion. yet you make totally facile claims http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=claim Claim: 1) To demand, ask for, or take as one's own or one's due. 2) To take in a violent manner as if by right. 3)To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain. 4) To deserve or call for; require But even though some of us on here are attorneys, or in the military, or work in the intelligence field we are supposed to take your arguments seriously?!! I would think people from any of 3 fields you listed would be familiar with the freaking DICTIONARY. Dictionary is your friend. Come back when you actually want to discuss things. You sound like an angry child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Exactly.You have ZERO training in Constitutional Law- yet you make totally facile claims about what the President can and can not do? But even though some of us on here are attorneys, or in the military, or work in the intelligence field we are supposed to take your arguments seriously?!! Given your extensive background and expertise, please respond to following question. How does requiring the Executive branch to obtain Judicial authorization to wiretap a United States citizen, within 72 hours after initiating a wiretap, from a secret court that has judges available 24/7, make us weaker or prevent us from effectively fighting the "war" on terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Thanks for the constructive comment. And now you know why there are so many lawyer jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I suppose Dems feel they have a "slam dunk" case I'm remembering a joke I heard once: It was a Marsha Clark beer: We thought we had a case, but . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Larry, the impeachment halted and reversed gains the GOP had been making. I will contend that the GOP would currently have a filibusterproof majority in the Senate if not for the impeachment of Clinton. What has happened since is not a result of the impeachment, rather it is the continuation of the process occurring prior to it. My problem with your assertion is chronology. Going from memory, the chronology was Special Prosecutor begins investigating Whitewater. Off-year election. GOP pickes up seats in House and Senate. Gain controll of Senate. Special prosecutor decided Whitewater is a dead end, but he might have had an affair. Keeps investigating. Presidential election. GOP picks up seats in House and Senate. Dems keep White House. Special Prosecutor decides he's pretty certain Clinton cheated on his wife. May have lied about it. Keeps investigating. Off-year elections. GOP loses a few seats in House and Senate (but retains controll). Congress decides they've investigated enough. Ends investigation, holds impeachment. Elections. GOP gains seats in House and Senate, gains White House. In short, IIR, the only election where the GOP hasn't gained power has been the one immediatly before the actual impeachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Your chronology is correct, but it doesnt address the mood of the voters. Everyone KNEW the GOP was going to impeach him before the election in 98. To make the comparison, if people know the Dems are going to impeach, they will take a hit. Even if they havent ACTUALLY done it before the elections in Nov. Dave, remember that each Senate election is local. In 98, the GOP lost a chance to win in states that they should have won, and in 00 that trend continued to a degree. That's one of the reasons you see so many 1st term Dem Senators in otherwise Right leaning states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 If the Crats get the house back after the 06 election- they will impeach Bush. That will be their agenda from day 1. If they were to get both houses back- they would try to remove Bush. If they don't win, then they won't be able to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.