Kucinich introducing Articles of Impeachment!

Blind_Io

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
24,228
Location
Utah
Car(s)
See signature
The story is still unfolding but here's what we have so far

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/9/191519/7181/915/533004


Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM PDT

Dennis Kucinich is speaking on the floor of Congress (and on C-SPAN) right now, introducing articles of impeachment.

Go, Dennis!

[As suggested in comments]:Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House of Representatives right now introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Yes, 35. He'll be reading for a while. [Update: at an hour and a half, he's up to #14 :) ]


Watch C-Span Now!

I'll post the text when it's available.

Update: Probably not, considering the length. Still no link to it, e.g., on his own website.

One substantive thing to note: these are more than just "articles of impeachment." They are that, plus all the supporting evidence behind each article. All that's needed now is the vote! Nancy, ball's in your court!

Second update: I realize this is still going on, and will be for a while. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note in this day of 24-hour cable where a police car chase in L.A. will instantly make national news, there isn't a word about this yet on CNN, MSNBC, Google News, Yahoo News, or anyplace else I can tell. It will be interesting to see when (and very definitely if!) it does.

Third update: Link to some early video and transcript (first 10 minutes only!) from RawStory, thanks to heathergirl in the comments.

Third update: Very short AP story, courtesy of caneel in the comments.

Fourth update: Who is this women sneaking in behind Dennis to get national TV time? :)

Fifth update: "Misprison of a felony" enters the discussion in the manner of Valerie Plame.

Sixth update: Bravo to Dennis for: A) mentioning the Geneva Conventions, which few other American politicians are willing to acknowledge actually apply to us, and B) repeatedly mentioning Iraqi civilians, and not just the 4000+ American troops, as victims of the war and of George Bush (and for not mincing words on the number - a million plus - of Iraqi dead).

Seventh update: Now we're on to torture, another well-justified article. I'm hoping article 35 will be "uncontrolled smirking." Which, I should point out without making light of real torture, is torture to those of us who have to put up with it.
Click to expand...
 
Is he just seeking to impeach Bush? Because if so, Cheney will become President. Raise your hand if you want that to happen *Cue Jetsetter sitting at his computer, waving his hand in the air* (just kidding)

I'm not sure if this is such a good idea so close to the election, it may end up hurting the democrats.
 
I love it. Cheney couldn't last three days as president. He'd have 7 heart attacks and resign for his health.
 
Is this the little guy that believes in UFOs and has a really young wife?
 
Meh, this'll never get anywhere.
 
It's a bit late anyway, isn't it? Unless Bush decides to nuke China, North Korea, Iran, Los Angeles (hopefully!), and Vladimir Putin's ZIL limo just as a last hurrah to mess things up for O'McBamaCain.

He probably would, too. It wouldn't surprise me. :ph34r:
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm too lazy to go wiki, but impeachment in and off itself does not remove a sitting president from office. There's some sort of accessory motion that is needed to remove the president. IIRC Clinton was successfully impeached.
 
phuckingduck said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm too lazy to go wiki, but impeachment in and off itself does not remove a sitting president from office. There's some sort of accessory motion that is needed to remove the president. IIRC Clinton was successfully impeached.
Click to expand...

Yup...You're right. But even before that it would likely have to go to a committee.
I recall him doing this last year as well...
 
Guys, this obviously isn't about removing Bush from office, it's a shot by the Democrats at the entire Republican party just before the election. It's also their way of saying, "look, we're not a bunch of sniviling pussies even though we have the majority in the House and Senate and still rolled over to Bush on the war."
 
I'm afraid that this will only continue the current image of the Democratic party; it's reactionary and indiscriminately angry at Republicans. I can't think of any pro-active thing they've done since they took the majority. Oh well :shrug:
 
To someone unfamiliar with US politics, what does this mean in real terms?
 
Viper007Bond said:
Meh, this'll never get anywhere.
Click to expand...


No kidding... grandstanding at it's finest... I hate these sorts of USELESS ploys that all politicians think are "good ideas"
 
Blind_Io said:
Guys, this obviously isn't about removing Bush from office, it's a shot by the Democrats at the entire Republican party just before the election. It's also their way of saying, "look, we're not a bunch of sniviling pussies even though we have the majority in the House and Senate and still rolled over to Bush on the war."
Click to expand...

But thats exactly what the democrats are...
Glenn Beck for President!







Flamesuit is on.
 
We have those here all the time, except instead of impeachment we say "vote of untrust" and the target is the cabinet, not the president. The opposition always files one around mid-mandate and another near the end. They never go anywhere, nobody expects them to, and nobody gives a shit about them.

Frankly, I don't know why they even bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top