Hello Lawdog I am interested in knowing what part of the nation you are from and what area you currently reside?
New around here? The short answers are: "Which nation" and "Texas".
The long answer is: the Blog Archive over on the left is your friend.
Lawdog what do you know about the articles of impeachement that were read before the house last night?
Know? Probably as much as anyone else who takes the care to be informed on government matters. The better question to ask would be, "What do you think about ..."
Heh. I think that Dennis Kucinich is probably single-handedly responsible for the record-setting amounts of Maalox and Alka-Seltzer that flew off DeeCee area pharmacies just after his announcement.
You may, or may not, recall that Mr. Kucinich introduced a similar impeachment measure last year, only Vice-President Cheney was the target of the resolution. Republicans took a brief moment ("Oh, Lord, for the bounty Thou placest before us, let us be truly grateful. Amen.") then yelled, "Game on! Let's debate!"
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and Democrat -- ought to be in lockstep on that whole impeachment issue, you think?) passed the impeachment measure over to the House Judiciary Committee (22 Democrats, 16 Republicans) whereupon that (Democratic-majority) Committee promptly kicked the measure under the table and left it to die, alone and unloved.
Something similar is going to be the same fate of this one. Quiet, no-muss, no-fuss death in Committee.
It's all very well to go about accusing the President of this and that -- but proof and facts aren't required for bumper-stickers and 15-second sound-bites.
Should an impeachment measure come before the House entire, it will have to be debated. Those who favour impeachment -- in this case, much of the Democratic side of the House -- must prove the assertations.
The other side -- in this case, much of the Republican part of things -- not only has the ever-so-difficult task of saying, "Prove it"; and "That's not proof, here's why, try again." but -- and don't think a whole bunch of senior Democratic Party officials haven't spotted this alligator in the swamp -- the Republicans are in the unique, enviable, and oh-so-enjoyable position of being able to say:
"Yes. President Bush is completely guilty of Articles 23, 24 and 25. Utterly and without defence.
However, since his violations of these Articles are due to his carrying out of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act -- a law written by the Congress of the United States, debated by the Congress of the United States, voted on by the Congress of the United States and approved to be sent to the President for ratification by the Congress of the United States -- well, under American law and under Common law, those folks who gave the President the power and the approval to violate Articles 23, 24 and 25 are just as guilty as the President -- if not more so -- and deserve at least the same punishment.
Here's a list of the names of the co-conspirators to those afore-mentioned violations of Article 23, 24 and 25 who are still currently serving in Congress.
Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander, and all that."
And this being an election year.
Yeah, unless the Republicans can pull a sneaky out of the hat, the Democratic leadership in Congress is going to make sure that this one quietly goes away.
Just like the last one.