Illinois House Legislation to Impeach Bush

[Snow Wolf]

Message Deleted

[SnoChica]

I think those are more substantial reasons for bringing a president up for impeachment than those by which Clinton was brought up.

[User Name]

The charges are more serious than what Clinton was impeached for but the difference between the two is it is a fact that Clinton committed perjury where nothing is considered fact on the list of charges for Bush. I know a lot of people think that it is true but that doesn’t hold up in court. If it can be proven that he broke laws that are an impeachable offence than by all means kick him out of office.

He has to be convicted of something before he can be removed from office.

[Snow_bunny18]

The charges are more serious than what Clinton was impeached for but the difference between the two is it is a fact that Clinton committed perjury where nothing is considered fact on the list of charges for Bush. I know a lot of people think that it is true but that doesn’t hold up in court. If it can be proven that he broke laws that are an impeachable offence than by all means kick him out of office.

He has to be convicted of something before he can be removed from office.
It says that He publicly admitted to ordering the national security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Therefore he basically admitted to a felony. Wouldn't they have evidence to support their charge? Or isn't that eveidence enough when our president admits to Spying on American citizens without a warrent? And thats only one charge. The others are worse.

[User Name]

It says that He publicly admitted to ordering the national security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Therefore he basically admitted to a felony. Wouldn't they have evidence to support their charge? Or isn't that eveidence enough when our president admits to Spying on American citizens without a warrent? And thats only one charge. The others are worse.

Twisting words can be a wonderful thing. What he actually publicly said is that the surveillance was done without violating FISA. In other words he admits the program existed but it broke no laws. The writers of HJR0125 obviously think that he did violate the law.

The spying program is this; they were monitoring people outside of America and people from inside America would either receive a call from or make a call to the person overseas under surveillance.

If you want to know Bush’s position on the program you can read it here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj032406.pdf (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj032406.pdf)

Its very long, 55 pages, and boring. I have only read a couple pages and doubt I will ever read all of it.

[Snow_bunny18]

He doesn't actually twist the words too much they just choose they're words really carefully, so that they say the truth but its not the actual truth. I hate that. can't there be any politicians who are honest?

And out of curiosity, is it as long as the calls are directed over seas they can listen to anything with out breaking the law.

[User Name]

He doesn't actually twist the words too much they just choose they're words really carefully, so that they say the truth but its not the actual truth.

I agree, twisting words probably wasn't the best way to put it.


And out of curiosity, is it as long as the calls are directed over seas they can listen to anything with out breaking the law.

To be honest I don't know the answer to that. I know that they have to go back and get a warrent when they bypass the court. I think the only real way to know if the law was broken is to read Bushs reasons why the wire tapping wasn't illegal and then go read FISA and read other acts and laws that are referred to in the reasons. I think most opinions you get from "experts" have their personal ideology mixed in with their decision.

[User Name]

One of the main issues with the wire tapping is that it turns out through phone records that tens of thousands of domestic calls (those between points inside the U.S. ) were evesdropped on as well. He is also behind the leaking of classified information in his attempt to smear ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his CIA operative wife Vallerie Plaim who by the way was America`s top inside spook into Iran`s nuclear program. By doing this he deliberately destroyed our ability to gain real intel on Iran...now he can say whatever he wants about Iran and there is no one to call bull sh!t on him.

Do you have any proof on the wire tapping? Seriously, I would like to read it. Its not something I have read about.

Where is the proof that he was behind the leaking of Vallerie? I have read that he is and that he isn't, it depends on who you listen to. I believe nothing that comes out of Joe Wilson's mouth, when he really started speaking out he was pimping a book and he has been caught lying. It is not even clear that giving her name was even a crime, I have heard conflicting stories about what her status was with the CIA. Nobody was charged with leaking her name after the grand jury investigation, Scooter Libby was not charged with the the crime of leaking the name of an agent.