Forums | MacLife

To bad they didn't do this before they spent several years as Bush's bitch.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

To bad they didn't do this before they spent several years as Bush's bitch.

Political grandstanding?
I'm pretty sure it isn't new.

'Course not.

Though the fallout does not often get as high as it has with this administration.

Perfect time to display moral cowardice by collaborating with it, then getting tough (or rather looking like getting tough) when it's too late, all the while continuing to collaborate.

radarman wrote:

This whole impeachment thing is political farce at this point, and everyone knows it. Bush knows it, Cheney knows it, the entire Congress and Senate know it - including Kuchinich. It's all for show, and to boost approval during what is looking to be a tough election season.

Everyone knows that by the time the hearings are over, we will have a new president - obviating the need for impeachment.

In some ways, I agree. It's too late to correct any issues but the hearing may give pause to future executive branch members because at least the illusion of them being able to abuse power unmolested will go away.

The hearings have commenced this morning apparently. It is made clear that they aren't impeachment hearings even though some are treating them as such, but to anyone who thinks they are a waste of time, listen to Nadler's opening statement (it is short and to the point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL7259BA … re=related

You can watch some of the other opening statements in the related videos. King's opening statement was the only one that appeared to have sentiments of being pro-Bush. No one from the Bush administration showed up according to those who were heard.

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-26 1:21 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of anything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, D-Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.

Yes. And Congress is complicit in the illegal actions that the Bush administration as done.

Good point

We now get to a fine point of law. Since it was illegal when the WH started the actions, but Congress passed a law saying it was ok, then it was illegal only before the law, but was still a crime.

Aftewards it's up to the Pres to pardon himself, and his cronies. Just another case of slime oozing out. It doesn't make them less GUILTY of breaking a law, just non-prosecutable.

Just like Ollie North is still a lying guilty bastard who broke his oath of office. The fact doesn't change.

resedit wrote:

The constitution is the foundation of our legal system, so if it is not constitutional, it is not legal.

True but until the constitutionality is ruled upon by the Supreme court even an obviously unconstitutional law stands.

user wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

resedit wrote:

The constitution is the foundation of our legal system, so if it is not constitutional, it is not legal.

True but until the constitutionality is ruled upon by the Supreme court even an obviously unconstitutional law stands.

Witness the current US Motto.

It seems incomprhensible to me that people who used to oppose it (like Teddy Roosevelt) did so because they thought it was sacreligious.

These days, it seems like people think they're letting Jesus down somehow if they don't plaster religious iconography on every square inch of their surroundings.

ScifiterX wrote:

user wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

True but until the constitutionality is ruled upon by the Supreme court even an obviously unconstitutional law stands.

Witness the current US Motto.

Don't like the law challenge it before the Supreme Court that much sooner.

There's currently a challenge before the 9th Circuit. There have been other challenges over the years. The problem is actually getting it before the SC.

I was supporting your point.