Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Proposed: BUSH, CHENEY, ET. AL.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:19 AM
Original message
House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Proposed: BUSH, CHENEY, ET. AL.
Edited on Mon Jun-04-07 10:35 AM by L. Coyote
House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution proposed on this day, June 4, 2007, herewith.

Following is a proposed resolution authorizing the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and any others. The resolution is modeled after the resolution that launched the impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, said having been modeled after the 1974 resolution to impeach President Nixon. Recommended submission date is June 6, 2007. Comments on proposed wording sought.

=============================================

Resolved, that the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the
chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed
to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise
its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, president of the United States of America and Dick Cheney,
Vice-President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such
resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper against said officers and any others.

Section 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require:

(1) by subpoena or otherwise --

(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and

(B) the production of such things; and

(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information;

as it deems necessary to such investigation.

Section 2. (b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised:

(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act,
by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so
exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision; or

(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman,
or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by
any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated
by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either
of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person
authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of
this section, "things" includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals,
memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions,
recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained
(translated if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects,
and other things of any kind, both physical and electronic in form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Vice President Who?
But otherwise, what a pretty sight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Gracias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. LOL! It should have been written President and VP Cheney ...
President and VP Bush has never been the case, and behind the scenes the VP has really been in more control than the pResident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalkydem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can we
truly wait 596 more days? Let's impeach this man now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. I want them out of there as soon as possible but I think it took about
that long to impeach Nixon. I watched the hearings for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. Has this been proposed?
I can't find any news about it.

Of course, that in itself is not surprising.

A link would help if you have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. YES.
"herewith"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "herewith" the link also? ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Here is the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. so you have no link
to any official government/legislative action.

It is your proposition.

Thanks for the honest then x(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. seriously
I need a link and I can't find it.

Can you help me out here -- I want to advise others of this and the link is essential.

I appreciate it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. This could not be more serious. But, will it be taken seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am so tired of having my hopes dashed when the utterly
reasonable, right and 'just' thing to do is proposed and then blatantly disregarded! But, here's hoping for this one. I think the M$M's too soon coverage of the 2008 erection is to try to dilute such attempts at trials for high treason and war crimes. They are pushing the viagra of political discourse well before its' time IMO, like Christmas decorations in June.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. Proposed by whom?
Unless it is by a member of Congress, it has no standing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. A member of the House must "submit" the resolution for House consideration.
Anyone can propose language for a House resolution.

It is time to discuss the language of the forthcoming impeachment resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Nothing is on their schedule pertaining to this and a search
for 'impeachment Bush' pulled up only Clinton impeachment documents. When I narrowed the search to june 2007 it yeilded nothing. ????

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=335
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Give Google a chance to crawl.
The language is herewith proposed, and discussion is sought on the proposal language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Any idea why it wasn't on their schedule for today? ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. YES. First, herewith means herewith.
Because it is a proposal only of language for a resolution. The idea is to discuss,
in a serious and substantive form, the language for an impeachment proposal.
Can that happen here? Maybe not. First, herewith means herewith.

Now, any comment on the language of the proposal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Because it has not been proposed by any member of congress
and it is just now being proposed by LC for discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Well that was as clear as mud! LOL. ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Every word counts when writing a proposed House resolution
Edited on Mon Jun-04-07 11:38 AM by L. Coyote
and this is a discussion forum, not a House committee.

I did not take into account that my "careful wording" would not matter.
Herewith means herewith only if you actually read the wording of the post.

I expected comments of a substantive nature. Oh, well,

I started over in GD: Politics. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3300186
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Your post made it appear that your proposed legislation
had been submitted or proposed by a member of congress. I hope you drafted your GD:P thread to reflect it was your proposal.

As written here, you gave false hope and I personally think it was cruel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. CONTEXT: There is a resolution in the House Committee, #333, and when that
is voted on and possibly sent to the Floor, a resolution authorizing a Judiciary Committee investigation will move forward.

Proposal still means proposal, right? "House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution Proposed" plus "herewith" seemed clear to me.

I am so SOORRRRY. It was never my intention to inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

That's unconstitutional. Ironic, considering the CONTEXT! We need an :irony: emoticon.

I've been working on the GD, Politics thread and posted HR 333 there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3300186&mesg_id=3300186
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. The proper way to frame the potential resolution would have been
"House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution to be or yet to be or that will hopefully be proposed".

You mockery is about par for the course given your refusal to admit your mistake. Have a good one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. It is a proposal now and herewith then already,
No "to be" or not to be about it.

What is the substantive issue here? Will that subject even come up? Anyone?

DEMs are off to a good start on the impeachment of BUSH and Cheney and others:

======================
Mafia prosecutor now has Bush in his sights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/wuselec103.xml

"... In a flurry of subpoenas and press releases, the Democrats have launched 36 investigations, holding about 220 committee hearings since seizing control of Congress last November - and forcing the resignations of six Bush administration officials. ...

"... House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ... is conducting 20 investigations.

"They include inquiries into misinformation about weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq War - something that has the potential to embarrass the British Government - corruption in postwar reconstruction, White House contacts with the convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the leaking of the identity of the CIA operative Valerie Plame. ..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. You don't understand, you are not a member of congress
you cannot propose a resolution for adoption by congress. Your draft resolution is but a dream, a hope and cannot be a reality until you find a congress critter that will argue/present the draft resolution, that will propose the draft resolution be approved or passed by a majority of congress.

You made the substantive issue in this thread the offer of false hope, as if a member of congress had proposed your draft legislation, as if it had occurred. It hasn't, your OP was misleading and that is the truth. So deal with your mistakes, admit them if you can and move on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. How can an attempted discussion of Impeachment of the POTUS be further trivialized?
I know, by discussing anything except the substantive issue, and claiming to restructure the substantive issue to a non-substantive issue.

This is an ad hominem. So I reply.

First, I might actually know I am not a member of Congress!
Second, I might actually know members of Congress!
Third, I might work for a member of Congress!

Oh yeah, and all resolutions are only written by the Members themselves, not us mere mortals.

Oh yeah again, is it possible to stay on topic please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You don't control the discussion, especially when you write the OP
so poorly. Someone tougher than I might have referred to your OP as an attempt to defraud or worse, a lie.

And here is a clue for you, if you don't want to continue the dialogue with me stop responding to my posts.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. LOL! It wasn't cruel and unusual punishment, but hopes
were dashed. It does sound good though. Have you gotten a better response and critique on GD Politics? I'll check it out. (by 'herewith', it did sound as if a member had already introduced it...)

PS: We do need an irony emoticon. I've not seen one. There's sarcasm but no irony that i recall. I'll see if there is a universal irony emoticon out there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Irony 'emoticons' or marks ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,795227,00.html

Sam Mohun
Thursday September 19, 2002
Guardian Unlimited

1. Twenty years ago today a computer scientist from the Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA named Scott Fahlman first suggested the use of a smiley, or emoticon, as a way of expressing sarcasm of irony in emails to the humourously challenged. ;-)
2. Fahlman's September 19 1982 message posted on a university message board has gone down in internet folklore as the year zero of smiley language. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_Mark

The Irony mark (؟) (French: point d’ironie) is a punctuation mark that purports to indicate that a sentence should be understood at a second level. It is illustrated by a backward-facing question mark. An irony mark may sometimes be referred to as an irony point, snark or zing. Its usage is extremely rare.
In October 2006 Choz Cunningham proposed an alternate design of the irony mark for contemporary English use, utilizing a dot under a tilde in place of a vertical mark.
In March 2007, the Dutch Foundation Collective Propaganda for the Dutch Book (CPNB) introduced an altogether new irony mark: a thunderbolt-shaped exclamation mark. Its usage has not caught on.
2006 Snark
The snark redesign in several decorative typefaces.
An alternate design, capitalizing on the unused tilde character of American computer keyboards was proposed and developed on the Typophile forums. The mark is intended to be used anywhere an indication of any verbal irony, including sarcasm, is desired. It was chosen for backwards compatibility and distinctness.
The proposal suggest a stylized ligature of a swash over a dot, to be included in fonts, and the suggested usage of a tilde immediately after a full stop where the ligature is unavailable. Supporters include several independent foundries and members of some major foundries. Over a dozen typefaces including the ligature are available as of 2007.

2007 Dutch Irony Mark
At the occasion of the Dutch Book Week 2007, with its central theme The Praise of Folly, the Dutch Foundation Collective Propaganda for the Dutch Book (CPNB) introduced an altogether new irony mark.<1> Its appearance is a thunderbolt-shaped exclamation mark. Three digital fonts with this sign included are available.<2>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. ;-) Wow, I didn't realize we already have it here on DU
Edited on Mon Jun-04-07 02:38 PM by WiseButAngrySara
until I typed the semi colon and -) and it was automatically converted into the irony emoticon, or ;-)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. How can an attempted discussion of Impeachment of the POTUS be further trivialized?
I know, post this on that other end of the political spectrum. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. You asked for an irony emoticon! I've read everything on
impeachment of POTUS, and your thread led several of us to believe that the resolution was a fait accompli! My hopes have been dashed about ever having these criminals in office (with both elections stolen, IMO ...by SCOTUS and Diebold) brought to justice any time soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
19. History:
Maclean's Magazine > Clinton Faces Impeachment Inquiry
http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011783

History refuses to be ignored in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building, just steps from the U.S. Capitol. Portraits of stern-looking old men - onetime chairmen of the House of Representatives judiciary committee - stare down from the walls. Among them is Peter Rodino, the man who presided in the very same room over impeachment hearings against Richard Nixon in 1974. So it was no surprise last week that members of the committee, gathering a quarter-century later to consider impeaching another and very different president, had history firmly in mind. They evoked the Founding Fathers of the American republic - James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin - and threw in Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and John Kennedy for good measure. They cited Rodino himself at length, elevating him to the status of constitutional oracle. And when they ran out of politicians, they quoted the Bible, their children, Lewis Carroll and Yogi Berra. This, they were clearly saying, is serious stuff.

And so it was. First, the committee members in Room 2141 voted on straight party lines to recommend a formal impeachment inquiry against President Bill Clinton - 21 Republicans for, all 16 Democrats against. Then, three days later, the full House of Representatives gave the go-ahead ........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. OKAY: Reactions here, and substantive proposal comments on GD Politics
I restarted this thread in GD Politics with a warning to avoid confusion and inflicting unconstitutional cruel punishment and premature partying.
React away here, flame me, rant, impeach, imprecate, etc.,

Go to the other thread for substantive discussion of how the resolution should proceed to the House floor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3300186
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC