holzman and
rmjwell conversed on the need to vote out those who stalled on impeachment after running on it as a platform, and then of course about impeaching the administration personnel after they leave office; viz
holzman's comment
in his journal:
Just because a President has left office doesn't mean he -- and his whole damn gang -- can't be impeached. Nor is it an
(
Read more... )
Well, geez, that sure taught Clinton a lesson. I bet it works on Bush in just the same way.
This is why the Democrats took impeachment off of the table. Instead of a meaningless circus of CPSAN-wankery, they're trying to get some useful shit done. And you fault them for it. Taste the awesome!
Reply
I think you have not read what I wrote in the main post. Maybe you should do that?
Reply
If politics is a game, George W. Bush has won two rounds, and pretty much everybody else in the USA has lost, and there is no point in arguing calls with the referees. The game's over. We've lost. And it's time for the next game.
Reply
I think you have an axe to grind, but you've come to the wrong grindstone.
Reply
I agree that those who ran on an impeachment platform, then said it was "off the table" or dragged their feet, need to be voted out as lying sacks of political baggage. Note that includes the Speaker of the House among others. I've been beyond disappointed in that clutch of political hacks.
That disappointment seems to be ill-founded, as no real purpose is served by tying up congress for a few weeks with an impeachment proceeding that they know beforehand is destined to be pointless in any practical sense.
So, to the real provocative issue - if it's perhaps empty to impeach someone who will soon be out of office, is it an even-emptier gesture to impeach someone after they are out of office? That's a more complicated question than one quick comment suggests!No, that question still seems fairly simple. If, in the extant case, it would be an empty gesture to impeach W or Cheney or both, then I fail to understand how it could be any less empty even given some possible future congress (fivethirtyeight.com says ( ... )
Reply
Here. Let me show you: I say, "is it an even-emptier gesture" and you reply "I fail to understand how it could be any less empty." See? Opposite of my question.
Indeed, I ask several questions in response to a post in another journal. See that post, please. I'll wait. Back? Ok, so then I go on to discuss the points raised in the other journal, then some hypothetical objections I expect others to raise, then the legal background with links to two pretty readable law review pieces, and finally I reach a conclusion.
The funny thing is that if you actually read what I wrote, you'd find you're arguing (poorly) my point. If you read the whole thing instead of grabbing phrases in a long discourse out of context, you would reach:
Maybe most importantly, why should we act like a person who has committed serious criminal acts while in office is entitled to a special trial with no real penalty by dint of being an EX-official? Just so ( ... )
Reply
I disagree. Tying up Congress for a few weeks would be a fine start.
Reply
Leave a comment