This was not a threat to Obama

Uh, then John, why are you posting this story?

Instead, why no follow up on the many instances where Bush goons kept ordinary Americans from attending 'public' appearances by Bush? There are lawsuits pending you know.

weinerdog43,

On another post I tried to answer you regarding impeachment/Libby commutation but for reasons unknown it didn't make The Swamp cut. Let me try again:

Any pardon/commutation is essentially obstruction of justice. Although I vehemently disagree with Dubya commuting Libby's prison term, I don't see how Dubya can be impeached for it. Then there's also the issue of whether this is smart politics on our (Dems) part.

Ah, Doug, not Doogie, commented here.
Frankly, Doug, I hope you and your ilk (I know how much you love that word!!) keep whining about impeachment for every little thing you folks don't like. Just makes it that much easier for the GOP to triumph in 2008!!!

And commuting a sentence is not obstructing justice. Those things are done all the time by judges, governors and even presidents.

John: I have a quick qestion for you. If someone is impeached, what are the implication politically? the fact that Bill was impeached, can he goes back to the white house? is that simple? what is the purpose of the impeachement? you can have a nice article with that.Please, your will be greately appreciate.

Doug, I know what you mean.

Impeachment is nuclear level politics. Unlike back in the 70s, the Republic party members in congress do not seem to be willing to even consider doing the right thing, so this could be a strictly partisan affair. For some reason, I am holding out hope that impeachment hearings would produce sufficient evidence that the Reptiles would be shamed into doing the right thing. I'm not sure if that is possible. It's pretty sad that you have poll after poll showing that 75% of the country is opposed to our current situation, yet Republic congresscritters keep on keeping on. Perhaps impeachment is futile. Do you have any other ideas? (forget criminal contempt of Congress...we've already seen what Shrub thinks of following the rule of law.)

Also, I still don't understand the Trib's posting procedures. Some stuff gets through, some doesn't. Sometimes it takes hours for a post to show up. Very frustrating.

Since when does an Obama story have to be newsworthy for the Trib or any other media outlet to cover it? Reporters will -- and do -- write about everything he has done, is doing and will do. I can't count the number of stories the Tribune has put on its front page about Obama's background.

What if he WAS a threat to Obama, and Obama didn't have the Secret Service protecting him? Sounds like Republicans really want someone to hurt Obama.

wienerdog43,

You recall Justice Stewart's famous quote abour pornography, loosly "I know it when I see it," well I guess I that's my take on impeachment. Impeachment is a club you don't want to get in the habit of taking out of the bag. The remedy here are the '08 elections.

John D.,

I could have made my view on obstruction of justice more clear.

My street law definition is: OoJ is the invervention of the executive branch in a criminal (civil?) case.

As much as I cannot wait to throw the current group of bums out, I really think that impeachment at this stage would be a huge waste of taxpayer money. Yes, I hate the fact that the GOP congress of the '90s misused the special prosecutor's office and the impeachment procedure to try to score political points over something that had nothing to do with the office of President, I cannot condone the Dems doing the same thing now. I think we just have to hang on and pray that Bush & Co. don't cause WWIII before January 2009.

wienerdog43,

On The Swamp's new posting modus operandi.

I'm thinking it's a new algorithm that compels us to step away from the computer and get a freakin' life.

weiner and Zook --

Impeachment just isn't going to happen. Most congressional Demos don't want to go there. They'd rather it be a rarely used thing, and not a standard political tactic. Covering their own butts in the future, don't you see?

And that may be for the best. The Demos have a lot on their plate. They're less-than-effective now,so how effective would they be if the Congress were bogged down in impeachment hearings? Don't you think it would be better if they tried to actually govern?

I'm not saying there isn't a case for impeachment... there is. I'm asking how practical would it be? Also: is your wish for impeachment about justice or more about simple revenge?

I think it's the latter, in which case not much good can come of it.

"...get a freakin' life."

Doug, you're spot on. Have a great afternoon, I'm going to try to actually get something done today.

The taxpayers need to take a look at the small army that the Commander Guy travels with, if the guy wasn't such a hack he wouldn't need the largest and most expensive Presidential security detail in US history.

Weiner and Doug Z,

Don't bother with the {Insert Clever Post Name Here} guy, it's that infamous GOP hack formally known as "Leo T", remember him?

ICPNHere,

Re-read my post.

America, take back your country:

IMPEACH SHOTGUN DICK VADER AND HIS PUPPET, THE DECIDER!!!

..suck on it, Clever Post Name Here girl aka Leo T...

Even "Doug Zook's' old boss, Dem Congressman Dick Gephardt, backs Hillary over Obama. Too bad, Doug!

Mr Zook,

Did. Got it. My bad.

For those who keep saying Bill Clinton was impeached: he was not impeached, instead a vote was brought to Congress whether he should be or not. And Congress voted not to impeach. What became newsworthy was the fact that such a vote was even considered.

Another wonderful bit of insight from John E:
America, take back your country:

IMPEACH SHOTGUN DICK VADER AND HIS PUPPET, THE DECIDER!!!

..suck on it, Clever Post Name Here girl aka Leo T...

Posted by: John E | July 5, 2007 2:18 PM

Yo, Johnny, you upset that your drug supplier, Al Gore III, was arrested and is now in rehab? You're really off the deep end today, aren't you??

I'm not going to stop calling for the impeachment, removal from office, arrest and trials of all of those bozos until it happens. If they manage to hang on until they officially leave office, I still want them arrested and tried for war crimes.

I will read and listen to Obama news reports any day than to be bombarded with that silly hotel heiress unworthy infomercials.

Cheryl,

Well good luck with that.

Roger, Clintoon was impeached but he was not removed from office. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal.

Cheryl, perhaps Bill Clintoon should be tried for war crimes too. How many Serbs did he kill when he bombed Serbia for 46 straight days? How many Iraqis did he kill when he bombed that country the four times he did from 1993 to 1998? Or how about the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan he bombed???

Go back to playing with John E in the basement, Cheryl!

Posted by John D July 5, 2007 5:07 PM

Little Foulball Johnny,

Bill Clinton is not the President anymore, Hillary Clinton never was the President, therefore she never gave anyone a pardon, period.

You Wingnuts really need to come up with some better arguments than the usual:
"bu..bu..but but Bill Clinton" to defend the lawbreaking Republic Party goons.

John D,

You need a refresher course in Civics and/or The Constitution. Roger is correct - Clinton was NOT impeached. That would mean he was tried by the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding and found guilty.

From Article. I. Section. 3.

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

In order to be Impeached, first charges must be brought and voted on, sort of like a Grand Jury does. If the charges are upheld there is a trial in front of The Senate. Only if found guilty would any President actually be Impeached, (prior to the guilty verdict that person is only on trial, or going through Impeachment proceedings) which means that person would be removed from office but then could be subject to other criminal proceedings.

An Impeachment Trial is also the only trial that is authorized by The Constitution to be held in front of a body (The Senate) other than a Jury. A successful Impeach,ent is also the only instance in which a President (meaning the next -in-office) may NOT grant "Reprieves and Pardons".

Nixon was not Impeached either, he resigned, which is why he could be granted the pardon that Ford gave him.

Wrong...impeachment takes place in the House and the Republican control house did vote to impeach him. The Senate is like the Judge and they refused by a vote of 51-50 to sentence him. Bottom line he was impeached

What does any of this have to do with a security threat to Obama? Bush costs a million dollars in tax payer money to every city he poisons with his presence. He needs to stay home in Texas and save us all some money.

Clueless Johnnnny E., please show me where I say Hillary pardoned anyone.

You really do show your lack of education on a daily basis, little boy. Mummy and duddy really should take away your computer privileges. Just keep playing house with Cheryl and Janet. You're all better off that way.

Lee G., perhaps this link will help you since you need a refresher course on civics and history. And this is pretty nonpartisan review of events. Clinton was IMPEACHED by the House, but the Senate voted to acquit him.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

"Roger, Clintoon was impeached but he was not removed from office. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal.

Posted by: John D | July 5, 2007 5:07 PM"

John D you dumb mook, impeachment in the U.S.A. MEANS THAT YOU GET REMOVED FROM OFFICE. What it DOESN'T mean is that you automatically get thrown in prison (unlike other countries). Read up a little bit.

Clinton was UNSUCCESSFULLY impeached, which, in his case, means that there weren't enough votes in the
(Republican-controlled)Senate to carry the charge through. Liken that to a court case in which the jury fails to find you guilty.

I was going to reply to John D. but found that Op109 took care of my light work for me. Thanks, Op109