MSNBC: "You don't have to be guilty of committing a crime to be impeached

[deminks]

You just have to be accused of abusing your power or unable or unfit to serve.”


They forgot to add that it only applies to Democratic leaders./sarcasm off.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/09/blago-impeached/

For Rethuglicans, there has to be an actual crime committed, not just "bad policy." Where have I heard that before? Hmmmm?

[argonchloride]

1. Gee, thanks a lot - my irony meter saw that and exploded.

;-)

[rfranklin]

2. They have to be caught with the smoking gun before...

the records are sealed for 25 years. Then they get a blanket pardon.

[ananda]

3. Reeps have to commit a crime?

It's news to me.

Reeps have been committing crimes for a long time,
and even egregious open crimes and treasons on the
part of Bush, cheney, and cohorts.. they just don't
call them crimes and simply ignore all efforts to
call them to account.

Nobody in America has the will to hold Reeps
accountable...

One law for Dems, no law for Reeps.

[kenny blankenship]

9. They have to commit a crime before a national television audience, filmed from 3 different angles

and be recorded saying "and now we will commit this major felony, which we know full well to be illegal, and which in no way do we commit unintentionally, nor inadvertently through lack of strict supervision of our subordinates. We do this now intending to cause great harm to the people of the United States, and for our own corrupt gain, (however large or small it may be we count it treasure so long as it's ill-gotten) and for the thrill of breaking many laws. Now in the name of Satan, first law breaker, do we commit this heinous felony. MALUM GRATIS MALI!"

[bluestateguy]

4. Evan Mecham was not convicted of a crime, but was impeached in 1988

and he was from the real loony Right too.

[MajorChode]

6. Clinton was never so much as indicted for a crime

And still impeached.

Just because it's done, doesn't mean it's right. There should be clear standards of reasons for impeachment. Anything else just reduces impeachment to a political tool that is ripe for abuse.

[blogslut]

5. Badly phrased, I agree

However, impeachment is the accusation, the indictment, so to speak. Bill Clinton was impeached but he was found not guilty (by number of votes) of the charges brought against him.

[Idealism]

8. Impeachment into the indictment

Impeachment is definitely the accusation. The vote after impeachment passes to remove the impeached, THATS indictment

[blogslut]

10. Sounds good to me

Pardon my clunky, pedestrian attempt to clarify. :)

[Idealism]

12. Not a problem

Have a nice day :)

[kevsand]

13. Um, no, not usually.

A criminal indictment is just a formal charge, the same as an impeachment. A criminal guilty verdict is a conviction. A successful vote to remove is just that: a removal.

[Idealism]

14. Impeachment isn't removal

Impeachment is meaningless. The vote after impeachment, which must be approved by 75% of Congress, that is removal. That is the conviction/sentencing

[kevsand]

15. That's exactly what I just said.

That's also not the point. I was objecting to your characterization of indictments.

[Idealism]

16. Ah I just realized I worded a previous post wrong

We are trying to say the same thing, lol.

[slipslidingaway]

7. I remember reading these words...

we have to distinguish between crimes and really bad policy

:(

:(

[librechik]

11. GOP definition: "underlying crime" = "being democrat" n/t

[Igel]

17. Of course not.

Otherwise we'd skip the trial and go right to sentencing.

Whoever said that impeachment was the same as a conviction? (Find him and teach him--or her--how to use a dictionary ... please.)

[mmonk]

18. Yes, they left that part off.

Even Dems are much quicker to condemn or accept impeachment of one of their own.