Friday, February 09, 2007

impeach you... !

Ol' Naahm in Philly might seem bent on the letter of the law, while dismissing the spirit of same, as being the minimum justification for impeaching rat bastards who might invade sovereign nations, whether they have dictators making the trains run on time or not, but I wonder what he would think of one Republican Congressman's standards:
"Now, I tell you, Mr. President, if these men -- especially after this assault -- are murdered in prison, or if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some kind of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill," Rohrabacher said.
Maybe Naahm can also weigh in on whether a formal call of impeachment can be joined for disparate reasons, e.g., if a President doesn't pardon border guards, who apparently shot an alleged drug-smuggling Mexican in the back, as a cause for starting proceedings, then it getting piggy-backed with war crimes indictments against Dubya and his coterie; never mind the absolutely twisted priorities of Dana Rorabacher, championing two murderers while all hell breaks loose, due to Republican malfeasance, around the world.

Or to put it more simply, and as the Bumper Sticker of the Day inquires: "Can't somebody please give this president a blow job?"

19 comments:

--spared-- said...

If we could just catch Condi in the act..

Naahm Deplume said...

Now there is a visual I didn't need.

Naahm Deplume said...

Adhering to the letter of the law? Face, whaddya expect of an attorney?

Re: your earlier observation, you have some support -- go to Articles 2 and 3 of the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon, and they go to violations of the oath of office. Now, I posit that Nixon's abuse of the system is different than Bush's alleged abuse in that Nixon clearly abused the organs of government (no snickering here) for his personal benefit (really, I mean it). Bush's actions have been above-board, whether or not constitutional, have been done "officially." Now, look at the SCOTUS decision in Clinton v. Jones, which makes clear no immunity for UNOFFICIAL actions.

Now, you can hang on the fact that Nixon was impeached for violating his oath, but therein lies the rub. Bush's actions were fundamentally different in that they were done in his official capacity, and not for personal reasons (unless you think he got paid to invade Iraq. Second thought, I do think you think that).

ATEOTD, impeachment as a tool of opposition politics is a very dangerous one to wield. It isn't a shotgun, its a WMD and once you use it, the genie is out of the bottle . . .

Naahm Deplume said...

Finally, G, admit it. You are really the Father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby, aren't you?

(I think I am the only male on the planet NOT claiming to be the dad of that little future golddigger).

Naahm Deplume said...

Since you asked me to weigh in, no, he can't be impeached for something he doesn't do (like pardoning border guards).

I think we can agree (for different reasons) that Rohrie is talking out of his ass, just as Cornyn did when he implicitly threatened judges a couple of years ago. That kind of talk is cheap, cheaper in fact than the drivel from the lefties that want to impeach Bush from everything from global warming to winning an election.

Speaking of global warming, I see that Pelosi with her new ride is doing her part to make North Conway a beachfront resort. Talk about carbon footprint!!!

Naahm Deplume said...

BTW, G, its Ol' Naahm IN Philly, not OF Philly. Christ, I barely admit I live in this cesspool, let alone let people think I am FROM here. No, a proud Bostonian, I.

Barking Up Trees said...

pardonez moi, beanertown amigo...
clarifications needed:
1) nixon wasn't impeached; he was about to be when goldwater went to his house and said get the f outta here...
2) impeachment, based on the letter of the law, is not required, as you imply with "he can't be impeached for something he doesn't do"... i cite u one congressman alcee hastings, who *was* impeached *and* convicted by congress while as a judge who was acquitted of corruption in a court of law... apparently the "technicality" was of little consequence when the house & senate decided to remove him, although significant enough for his constituents to send him to congress as their rep... go figure...

so whyn't we agree that impeachment ought be for *sins* committed, and that we can both agree to agree that being slick willie isn't nearly as bad as being america's stalin...

hmm... ?

Barking Up Trees said...

p.s. spared, how do u think condi got that space twixt her teeth... ;)

--spared-- said...

Ewww.. speaking of visuals one does not need. Damn it...

--spared-- said...

That whole Anna Nicole whatsherface drama is ridiculous. She's dead, it wasn't murder. Move on people. She probably knocked herself off slowly by taking those diet pills when they still contained ephedra. Do we really need to dedicate so much tube time to this? Isn't Iran testing missiles or something that's way more important than this?

--spared-- said...

Also, regarding Pelosi... talk to the Sgt at Arms who suggested she take that ride to make her long trek from Cali to DC. No comparison to Dennis Hastert who could practically use public transportation to get to work, he was so close (by comparison).

--spared-- said...

Damn it G, ya pulled yer email addie and I can't email you pics now. Email me pls.

Naahm Deplume said...

G, are you hearing jackboots outside of your door again??? The GOP only wants to infringe your liberties if you plan to set off nukes or look at porn. The dems want to infringe your liberties if you smoke, eat donuts or movie popcorn, or fly an american flag on your property.

Further clarification amigo. Nixon wasn't impeached but there were articles of impeachment. They just weren't used.

Second, Hastings was acquitted, but that doesn't mean he did not do something for impeachment or indictment purposes. Other than that, I am missing your point about Hastings, I think. Perhaps I am being too much a lawyer.

As for impeachment for whatever "sins" the party in power can think of, I agree that it can be attempted, but I say again, do you think it wise to go down that path? IMHO, it trivializes and cheapens the process, and makes nugatory the qualifier about Treason, bribery and other High crimes and misdemeanors. Or is that just window-dressing???

Spared. Pelosi can fly whatever she wants; I just find it funny when the supposedly enviro-conscious, woman of the people from liberal S.F. decides she needs a plane nearly as large as the president's. Strikes me as a but of a power trip (no pun intended). I am curious to know what the birkenstockers in SF think about the plane. Okay if she does it, but a crime against humanity if Bush does it???

--spared-- said...

Naahm, get your panties unbunched about Pelosi and the plane; the use of the plane was suggested by someone else, not Pelosi or her reps. Until the White House or Congress invests in a more energy efficient mode of transportation for its legislators who live way on the other side of the continent to travel, people like Pelosi will need a better plane than say the schmuck who has to travel 500 miles to make it to work. It's a fact - live with it.

What is funny is that it was sold to the media by the Right as some type of power move on her part, probably initiated by their overt sexist tendencies. In the end, it was a mis-representation on their part. I shouldn't be surprised by alas... I am. Apparently some small part of me hangs on to a sliver of hope that they got the message last November regarding their bullying tactics and their pathetic strategies to torpedo the democrats' efforts to put this country back on track. I was wrong. So, shoot me.

Barking Up Trees said...

naahm wears panties... ??

--spared-- said...

Only on Tuesdays.

Naahm Deplume said...

Can't shoot you, Spared. Liberals aren't in season.

As for me, I am overtly oversexed. And lets not bring up the panties again. Gonna get G all hot and bothered.

--spared-- said...

I'm actually a social liberal. I'm fiscally conservative. So THERE!

Overtly oversexed? As opposed to what exactly? And leave G out of this, he hasn't been in town long enough to find anyone to wear panties for.

Naahm Deplume said...

now there is a visual I didn't need.