Bill Maher Asks: Why Not Impeachment?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. Blog by Bill Maher

    So a judge has ruled that not only is Bush's warrantless wiretapping program illegal, it's also unconstitutional. And not just unconstitutional, but doubly unconstitutional; it violates both the 1st and 4th amendments. We're talking a smackdown of Judge Judy-esque proportions.

    Now, I'm not really pushing the impeachment of George Bush, unless it's about lying about that fish I talked about last season. Them I'm all for it.

    But if this decision stands, and this program is unlawful and unconstitutional, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies while in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order. And that means Alberto Gonzalez could be tried, convicted, and deported.

    So let's just say for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court upholds this decision and says Bush broke the law and violated the Constitution. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil case, a case that had no bearing on the public as a whole. This would - unquestionably - be a greater offense.

    How would you square impeaching Clinton and not impeaching Bush? Or would Bush have to sleep with this judge in Detroit?

    It's sort of like the 7 minutes question I always ask Republicans. Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle?
  2. Ok, I'll bite. Because the judge is some pathetic left wing kook job, appointed by Carter and apparently waiting patiently for the mother ship to return and beam her aboard. Because no other court has ever taken the position she has, and in fact the FIFA court has ruled exactly the oppsite, namely that the President has inherent authority to order warrantless nationalk security wiretaps and searches. In fact, Clinton did it, with Aldrich Ames.

    The fact that this moron Maher is regarded as thoughtful by the kook left is yet more proof of why Democrats cannot be trusted with the nation's security. They honestly believe that wiretapping conversations with terrorists overseas without a warrant is illegal and grounds to impeach a president.
  3. Bill Maher was funny years ago when he did comedy. Today he is just another angry political commentator. Yawn!
  4. Who cares what Bill Maher asks?
  5. Actually, its now been revealed that the same judge is a trustee of the ACLU....Im still not sure why everyone is up in arms over wire tapping a bunch of Arabic chatter? Who cares?
  6. didn't take a liberal long to start referring to republicans as KKK....that's because most are incapable of debate....very ironic considering the dems. started the KKK
  7. Impeachment? No way.
    Isn't Bush and the rest up there above law these days?
    Aren't they the true untouchables?

    Imagine for second if the tables were turned.
  8. Yall is klannish...4 sure.

    1. of pertaining to or characteristic of a clan of right wing regressive Republicans.
    2. inclined to associate exclusively with the members of one's own group; cliquish: the clannish behavior of the original members of the country club, as currently exemplified by right wing regressive Republicans.
    3. imbued with or influenced by the sentiments, prejudices, or the like, of a clan of right wing regressive Republicans.
    The Rush Limbaugh dittoheads are klannish.

    Urban Dictionary says nothing about KKK, or race.

    Or are you one of those red staters who can't read?


  9. Pabst


    A snitch at your utility company notices higher than normal electricity usage at your abode, notifies the cops who fly over your home using infra-red.

    You're stopped for speeding and the police demand you open your trunk.

    A pretty police decoy asks you for a "date".

    The IRS without permission queries your bank, credit card and employment records.

    A "roadblock" is set up and you're instructed to perform a random breathalyzer.

    Your suburb passes an ordinance prohibiting ownership of handguns.

    One could argue all of these instances involve ambiguous abuses of the Constitution. Try arguing that in court. You'll be laughed out. The Bush surveillance plan? Just another erosion of privacy rights. It'll be found legally kosher.
    #10     Aug 24, 2006