Prove it to me

from JoeUser Forums
To all those who think Bush and/or Cheney should be impeached. Prove it to me. I want proof that there is a legit reason for an impeachment. I want proof of a crime that was commited that is punishable by impeachment. If you can't then please lay off the impeachment line I see so often thrown around. It's bad enough our country is losing it's mind, we don't need to be changing laws just because we don't like someone.

So I dare, I dare anyone to provide proof to impeach Bush and Cheney. If so, I pledge 100% support. I will back you and demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Otherwise, drop it already.
politics
7,370 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Thus in reality it is what Congress believes is a justified reason to be the basis for impeachment for a misdemeanor could be a very minor offense.

I will give you one reason although there are many more.

The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the reason for the most recent revisions to the law that Bush signed yesterday. Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act and the courts have ruled that was illegal. He violated the law.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA


and the democrats just made it legal in august of 2007
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the reason for the most recent revisions to the law that Bush signed yesterday. Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act and the courts have ruled that was illegal. He violated the law.


OK, thank you for providing so. Now tell me why was he not impeached for it? And explain to me how he can be impeached now that it was made legal by the same people who said he was breaking a law?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act


by the way


the law stated that bush had to have a warrent if he was listening to an american on our soil. it also said that he didn't need one for anyone outside of the country.

the court ruling stated that if two people outside of the country were talking and it was routed throw the usa then he would need a warrent.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
the court ruling stated that if two people outside of the country were talking and it was routed throw the usa then he would need a warrent.


this is the so called law that he broke
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA


and the democrats just made it legal in august of 2007


It was NOT legal when Bush directed the NAS to break the EXISTING FISA LAW. UNLESS the law was made retroactive to 2001, Bush violated the law and should be IMPEACHED! SLAM DUNK!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)CharlesCS1August 7, 2007 10:37:11Reply #3
"The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the reason for the most recent revisions to the law that Bush signed yesterday. Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act and the courts have ruled that was illegal. He violated the law.


OK, thank you for providing so. Now tell me why was he not impeached for it? And explain to me how he can be impeached now that it was made legal by the same people who said he was breaking a law?"

First he was not impeached because the GOP was in control of Congress. Unless the law signed yesterday was retroactive, Bush was in violation of the prior law up to yesterday. Thus there is justification to Impeach Bush. You asked for one reason. YOU HAVE IT!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You asked for one reason. YOU HAVE IT!


OK, first of all stop screaming, we are adults here not children. I get enough of screaming from them to last a lifetime. I don't see the need for it.

Second, if Bush is still in violation since he "commited a crime" before the law was passed and Congress is now controlled by Democrats, I ask why is he not being impeached? Where are the impeachment proceedings? And if this law was made retroactive, why would the Democrats pass a law that would exempt Bush from a crime they screamed he had done?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Second, if Bush is still in violation since he "commited a crime" before the law was passed and Congress is now controlled by Democrats,

Evn kookoo Kucinich is not suggesting that.  His are basically allegations of crimes, with no proof (they hope to get proof once they start the witch hunt).  In effect, only the loons would answer your challenge.  Since it is an impossibility at this point.

And it seems you caught another troll with your troll bait.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Col, your understanding of FISA is sadly lacking. Perhaps if you were "in the know" as to what the FISA courts have allowed or disallowed you might not be screaming. The only folks who actually know are the members of the court, and the petitioners in each case. And there are very good reasons why you have no need to know. (Even if you had the clearance level)
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

The number one REASON President Bush should be impeached is:

 

Cause they don't like him.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the other hand, there is no reasonable explanation as to why members of congress and the press have not been charged with treason, sedition, and illegal disemination of classified information...for which there is abundant evidence...I know...this has nothing to do with the subject...but I just wanted to say it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Col, your understanding of FISA is sadly lacking. Perhaps if you were "in the know" as to what the FISA courts have allowed or disallowed you might not be screaming. The only folks who actually know are the members of the court, and the petitioners in each case. And there are very good reasons why you have no need to know. (Even if you had the clearance level)


So what you are saying that what Col said here "The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional." is incorrect? I really wanna know cause if Bush did break a law, I want something done about it. Now the fact that nothing has been done when we have a Democratic controlled Congress now makes me wonder just how true any of this is, considering the Democrats are out for blood and Bush is the target.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the other hand, there is no reasonable explanation as to why members of congress and the press have not been charged with treason, sedition, and illegal disemination of classified information...for which there is abundant evidence...I know...this has nothing to do with the subject...but I just wanted to say it.


While not on topic, if this is truthful, it merits the concept that our own politicians are probably breaking laws left and right and no one does much about it. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Evn kookoo Kucinich is not suggesting that. His are basically allegations of crimes, with no proof (they hope to get proof once they start the witch hunt). In effect, only the loons would answer your challenge. Since it is an impossibility at this point.


That's what I want to know, is there legit proof of a crime and if so I have to wonder who is worse, Bush for committing the crime or Congress for not impeaching him.

And it seems you caught another troll with your troll bait.


I love the fact that only Col has responded. I would like to know where are the other people on this site that either think Bush should be impeached (I have seen more than 1) or that they at least believe he did something wrong and try to legitimize it right here. I say it again. I dare anyone.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional." is incorrect?


as i said earlier bush didn't really break the law. because the law didn't cover what he did.


ie

he had to have a warrant to get evidence against a citizen in the USA.

he didn't need to have a warrant to get evidence for a non citizen outside of the USA.


this where the problem came from. when this law was passed no one could do this. but now they can.

if two non citizens outside the USA are talking and are routing it through the USA. the court ruled that you had to have a warrant but this took place after bush had been doing it.

the new law that the senate just passed now makes it so the president doesn't need that warrant.

so did bush break the law, no. did he do something wrong, maybe.