Posted on 04/17/2007 2:29:15 PM PDT by mnehring
Yup. That is, in part, why there is no punishment associated with impeachment and conviction aside from removal from office and potentially the ability to hold further office.
So could we-the-people file Impeachment papers against Kucinich?
One of many liberal comments at the end of the article. As Dickie Roberts says, 'hey, thats nuckin futs!"
Cleveland must be a stinky armpit.
“Hey, over here..it’s me Dennis Kucinich...hello? Hello? Can anyone hear me?”
>a crime where he is outside of the normal legal process
Would you agree there is still a legal process involved in impeachment? Gaining an impeachment conviction is much more difficult then any other process of law because it requires two-thirds of a large body and not simply 12 people.
Thanks for the correction. I wish the majority of Democrats would be expelled...and tarred and feathered and run out of town.
Thanks for the correction. I wish the majority of Democrats would be expelled...and tarred and feathered and run out of town.
I am surprised that you haven’t been tried and convicted by the grammar police yet.
Damn right, he is a twerp.
Arioch7
I say potato, you say pahtahto. :D
I listen to Miller at noon on the radio, you must have the late shift.
Cleveland's most enduring embarrassment comes to the front again.
I think it’s call a petition for a recall, in you are in a hurry; or, you can wait for the next election. :>)
Dick Cheney should take Dennis the Menace hunting.
I would say that it is more of a political process than a legal process. The only legality is that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presides over the "trial" in the Senate. Otherwise, I don't think that any conventional legal practices automatically apply. I look to how the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate during the Clinton trial greatly limited the "testimony" of "witnesses." You couldn't get away with that during a real trial.
Plus, you still had political aggrandizing going on, with Harkin objecting to Rehnquist's use of the term "jurors" when referring to the Senators. Harkin insisted that they still be referred to as "Senators."
Just my opinion.
-PJ
They don’t have the votes in the Senate, so it’s a non-starter. But, if it was, Bush appoints a replacement subject to a majority vote of both houses. If they stall the vote, the old ‘recess appointment’ question arises. I’m not sure the question of whether recess appointments apply to the VP’s office has ever been answered.
‘Reading some of the comments on the WashPost, it looks like ther are some folks just asking for a visit from people in dark suits who speak into their lapels.’
I, too, wonder if some of these comments are ‘protected’ free speech or should receive attention of the Secret Service...
Now, if Cheney is removed and his replacement is stalled in Congress, and then something happens to Bush with a vacancy in the Vice-Presidency, whom do you suppose is next in line to assume the Presidency?
-PJ
There’s nothing I can do but complain about the guy. He’s not in my ballpark.
Ironically, there’s nothing I can do about the ones in my ballpark. I’ve voted against them for years and it’s just a waste of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.