The Constitution says a President can be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Thus in reality it is what Congress believes is a justified reason to be the basis for impeachment for a misdemeanor could be a very minor offense.

I will give you one reason although there are many more.

The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the reason for the most recent revisions to the law that Bush signed yesterday. Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act and the courts have ruled that was illegal. He violated the law.

and the democrats just made it legal in august of 2007

OK, thank you for providing so. Now tell me why was he not impeached for it? And explain to me how he can be impeached now that it was made legal by the same people who said he was breaking a law?

by the way


the law stated that bush had to have a warrent if he was listening to an american on our soil. it also said that he didn't need one for anyone outside of the country.

the court ruling stated that if two people outside of the country were talking and it was routed throw the usa then he would need a warrent.

this is the so called law that he broke

Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA


and the democrats just made it legal in august of 2007


It was NOT legal when Bush directed the NAS to break the EXISTING FISA LAW. UNLESS the law was made retroactive to 2001, Bush violated the law and should be IMPEACHED! SLAM DUNK!

(Citizen)CharlesCS1August 7, 2007 10:37:11Reply #3
"The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional. That is the reason for the most recent revisions to the law that Bush signed yesterday. Thus Bush knowingly violated the FIAS Act and the courts have ruled that was illegal. He violated the law.


OK, thank you for providing so. Now tell me why was he not impeached for it? And explain to me how he can be impeached now that it was made legal by the same people who said he was breaking a law?"

First he was not impeached because the GOP was in control of Congress. Unless the law signed yesterday was retroactive, Bush was in violation of the prior law up to yesterday. Thus there is justification to Impeach Bush. You asked for one reason. YOU HAVE IT!

OK, first of all stop screaming, we are adults here not children. I get enough of screaming from them to last a lifetime. I don't see the need for it.

Second, if Bush is still in violation since he "commited a crime" before the law was passed and Congress is now controlled by Democrats, I ask why is he not being impeached? Where are the impeachment proceedings? And if this law was made retroactive, why would the Democrats pass a law that would exempt Bush from a crime they screamed he had done?

Second, if Bush is still in violation since he "commited a crime" before the law was passed and Congress is now controlled by Democrats,

Evn kookoo Kucinich is not suggesting that.  His are basically allegations of crimes, with no proof (they hope to get proof once they start the witch hunt).  In effect, only the loons would answer your challenge.  Since it is an impossibility at this point.

And it seems you caught another troll with your troll bait.

Sorry Col, your understanding of FISA is sadly lacking. Perhaps if you were "in the know" as to what the FISA courts have allowed or disallowed you might not be screaming. The only folks who actually know are the members of the court, and the petitioners in each case. And there are very good reasons why you have no need to know. (Even if you had the clearance level)

The number one REASON President Bush should be impeached is:

 

Cause they don't like him.

On the other hand, there is no reasonable explanation as to why members of congress and the press have not been charged with treason, sedition, and illegal disemination of classified information...for which there is abundant evidence...I know...this has nothing to do with the subject...but I just wanted to say it.

Sorry Col, your understanding of FISA is sadly lacking. Perhaps if you were "in the know" as to what the FISA courts have allowed or disallowed you might not be screaming. The only folks who actually know are the members of the court, and the petitioners in each case. And there are very good reasons why you have no need to know. (Even if you had the clearance level)

So what you are saying that what Col said here "The Courts ruled in January 2007 that the wire tapping that bypassed FISA, which Bush himself admitted was taking place under his direction, was ruled unconstitutional." is incorrect? I really wanna know cause if Bush did break a law, I want something done about it. Now the fact that nothing has been done when we have a Democratic controlled Congress now makes me wonder just how true any of this is, considering the Democrats are out for blood and Bush is the target.

On the other hand, there is no reasonable explanation as to why members of congress and the press have not been charged with treason, sedition, and illegal disemination of classified information...for which there is abundant evidence...I know...this has nothing to do with the subject...but I just wanted to say it.

While not on topic, if this is truthful, it merits the concept that our own politicians are probably breaking laws left and right and no one does much about it. Then we wonder why nothing gets done.

Evn kookoo Kucinich is not suggesting that. His are basically allegations of crimes, with no proof (they hope to get proof once they start the witch hunt). In effect, only the loons would answer your challenge. Since it is an impossibility at this point.

That's what I want to know, is there legit proof of a crime and if so I have to wonder who is worse, Bush for committing the crime or Congress for not impeaching him.

And it seems you caught another troll with your troll bait.

I love the fact that only Col has responded. I would like to know where are the other people on this site that either think Bush should be impeached (I have seen more than 1) or that they at least believe he did something wrong and try to legitimize it right here. I say it again. I dare anyone.