With all the “alleged” illegal actions, scandals, etc. circling the Bush administration, you would think impeachment procedures would be well under way, right? All it took for Clinton was a lie about a bj… Americans, why do you think Bush hasn’t been impeached yet?
I think everyone has a short attention span these days. The Bush administration are feeding on this. They spin their scandals away so fast and distract the public with their scare tactics so that nothing ever sticks in the public mind for long enough to get anybody passionate about the impeachment process.
Bill Clinton was impeached (by the House) after being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, both impeachable crimes. No impeachable crimes have been brought against George W. Bush while in office. Thankfully our judicial system does not recognize “alleged” illegal actions, scandals, etc., and instead relies on actual facts, tangible evidence, and reliable testimony in its seach for truth. Otherwise the innocent would be wrongfully convicted exponentially.
The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence that Bush has done anything remotely warranting impeachment and in a trial, the democrats would have to provide REAL evidence. However as long as they play it out in the media, they do not have to prove their accusation for them to be effective.
I could accuse another politician of being in the pocket of one lobbiest or another with little to no proof and the public would believe it but if I had to prove it in court, I couldn’t.
Trials in the media are much more effective because lies count as truths to the partisans
BTW, Clinton wasnt impeached for a bj and everyone knows that but the dems throw that out there to make it seem like it was just something personal-
invoice Clinton grew to alter into into impeached (with the aid of the abode) after being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, the two impeachable crimes. No impeachable crimes have been greater suitable against George W. Bush at the same time as extremely than artwork. happily our judicial kit does not comprehend “alleged” unlawful strikes, scandals, and so on., and intensely relies upon particularly archives, tangible archives, and sturdy testimony in its seach for certainty. in any diverse case the possibility loose may be wrongfully convicted exponentially.
you asked a very good question. some democrats did push
for impeachment. when the republicans made an effort to
impeach clinton, it backfired big time. most democrat
lawmakers probably remember that.i feel that is why
only a small amount of democrats have pushed for
for what its worth look how badly his party did at election
time. he even said we took a thumpin, one of the few things
he ever said i agree with. once again, you asked a good
question. on a different note, happy new year.
Two reasons mainly:
1. There is no good evidence that he has committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.
2. There are not enough votes in either of the houses of congress to bring the president to trial.
Most of the democrats actually like him, They want illegal immagration, He likes illegal immagration, they want big spending plans, he has given them big spending plans on a lot of things, Right now, he is behaving as a democrat, and the dems actually like him.
Uh, Clinton lied, UNDER OATH, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. You should be asking why he isn’t in prison.
edit: Clinton lied. There is no way anyone can deny that fact. Bush may have lied, or he my have genuinely thought there were still WMDs in Iraq. We won’t ever know for sure. That’s called plausible deniability. There is none for Clinton who’s DNA was found on Monicas dress, who admitted to having sexual relations after denying it.
The case can and has been made that Bush THOUGHT, well intentionedly, that Sadaam had WMDs. If you are old enough (which, by your hurling of insults is unlikely) to remember the first Gulf war and the years that followed, you would understand that Sadaam had been messing around with UN weapons inspectors for years, kicking them out of the country several times, limiting there movements, etc. Clinton wouldn’t do anything about him, because he was too busy LYING UNDER OATH, an offense that IS punishable by imprisonment. Your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.
First of all, it’s more of a rant than a question. Secondly, they’re only smart if they agree with you, the others are douche bags and such. Thirdly, he has to be charged with a high crime or misdeamor. And last but not least, if such evidence came to light, don’t you think the Bush hating dems would be all over it like stink on ****? I would be, just the same as I was Clinton for his lie to a Federal Grand Jury and obstruction of justice.
Well, it doesn’t seem fair but Bush hasn’t broken the law yet. Both Republicans voted for the quagmire in Iraq. And there would be no point in impeaching him since he only has 13 months left in office.
Not too mention if her were impeached, that means Dick Cheney would be President (assuming Bush was removed from office), would you really want Cheney as President. If Cheney wanted to he can run for office , hypothetically win and we’d be stuck with Cheney for four more years at least. I think Bush sucks, but Cheney is far worse.