Why isn't impeachment gaining more traction? »
Posted By GrainOfSand 1 year ago in NewsBruce Fein, once a young lawyer in President Nixon's Justice Department and decades later co-author of the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, was headed over to a Senate office building this summer when he received the news.
Read Full Story at lasvegassun.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 7
-
0%
GrainOfSand1 year ago
"The White House's attorney was refusing to let former counselor Harriet Miers and another aide testify before congressional investigators concerning internal conversations about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
"Fein fumed. Even Nixon didn't try to stop his counsel, John Dean, from testifying in the Senate Watergate hearings, and perhaps he should have. Dean captivated the nation in 1973 when he detailed Oval Office conversations implicating Nixon in Watergate."
Reply -
0%
aniokly1 year ago
If the President is guilty of Impeachable offenses it would be derelict of Congress in their own duties not to Impeach. Why do you think there is no support from Congress for the Articles of Impeachment? Because they are not valid Articles. Their own Democrats could Impeach without one Republican vote. It is off the table.Impeachment hearing would interfer with their re election plans.
Reply -
0%
GrainOfSand1 year ago
Glad to see you here Aniokly, I was expecting a response from you! I'd sit down at the table with you anytime.
Reply -
0%
issues231 year ago
If there was anything to impeach hiom for they would... but there is nothing there he did that was illigal, so there is no grounds for impeachment... i guess i dont really see the purpose of this article.
Reply -
0%
doppich1 year ago
Of course the House should impeach Bush. The Republicans impeached Clinton because they could, knowing full well there was no possibity of conviction. And it helped some faces on the House Judiciary Committee gain recognition. Lindsey Graham moved on to the Senate, for instance, attaining a position well beyond his level of competence.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre1 year ago
I can think of two major differences:
1. While I don't think that lying about an affair was what the Founders had in mind as an impeachable offense, Clinton did commit perjury. While Bush has done numerous politically stupid things, there haven't been any clear cut, undeniable crimes.
2. There were sufficient votes in the House to impeach Clinton. With many of the Blue Dogs supporting Bush's agenda pretty much down the line, from war funding to wire tapping, there aren't anywhere near enough votes for impeachment.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.