Image

Do-It-Yourself Impeachment, no joke

User avatar
DIYImpeachmentsml.jpg

Do-It-Yourself Impeachment, no joke.
The Citizens' movement!

The day the nation demands impeachment is almost upon us. On Jan 20th, sacks and sacks of mail will be sent to congress demanding impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

https://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

troll.jpg

 

 

User avatar
Can we impeach Fancy Pants? If not I don't think the Collective is interested. Although that is not really necessary as we have begun Purge Season '06 and she is the hands-down number 1 purgee (so to speak).

 

 

User avatar
[html]Initiating the impeachment process would lead to an investigation that would implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

Beyond that, this process can apply to any federal official who has broken the law.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
I think you're at the wrong website, C.C. Try this one:

http://communistsforkerry.com/index.php

I also think I smell another purge coming up real soon...Red Square?

 

 

User avatar
We can impeach too! My heart leaps in collectivist glee! I need more information, please comrade Crunch, enlighten us all on why we must move for immediate impeachment.

 

 

User avatar
Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote:We can impeach too! My heart leaps in collectivist glee! I need more information, please comrade Crunch, enlighten us all on why we must move for immediate impeachment.

Because Bushitler and $.$. Halliburton  raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the Iraqi countryside.

That enough?

 

 

User avatar
Hmm, maybe. I would like to hear from comrade Cap'n Crunch though also. But yes, impeachment good. But still, comrade Cap'n Crunch, we need a detailed report from you on why we must waste Party resources to impeach.

 

 

User avatar
*sigh* I don't think Comrade Cap'n Crunch is coming back. This makes me sad. But it's funny that such brave heroic comrades like him/her/blender are out there fighting the good fight and getting our base motivated to vote Tuesday. I can only imagine the outrage we would have if they try to impeach the President, why, we might start web based activist communities much like MOVE ON and preach to people about how much time this is wasting or how this is hurting our country. Just think of it, we could have an excuse like the Dems do for crazy deafening obnoxiosness! MOVE ON  America, all the President did was remove a vicious dictator and prevent him from developing weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION or (distraction) as you like to call em', yes a mushroom cloud is a pretty big distraction if you ask me, I can't really focus on washing my Hybrid when I got a mushroom cloud hovering over me now can I? Nor do I think I can focus on wealth re-distribution, well yes I can, we would ALL be voting Democrat won't we.

Ugh, comrade Cap'n Cruch, listen to me, the KKKarl mind control machine has me spouting unprogressive words, quick, come and defend your proposition before I am coerced by the reason voices to cast my ballot for the Repuglicans!

 

 

User avatar
I think I scared him off...sry Meow...we need to send the undervasser boat to ping continually for him...

The title of this post reminds me of the unsolicited crap that gets faxed to my business every day lol

 

 

User avatar
It's OK, I'm sure he still hasn't figured it out yet. I'm going to go look on CFK and see if the idiot posted there too.

Yes, ping him. I'll go get the frozen food.

 

 


 

User avatar
Comrade Crutch, you have made your point and I am completely convinced. Thank you. I will take your findings and bring them before the Politburo and we will confer on what to do next, we do collectively debate these issues. This is a socialist-democracy mind you. It may take days, weeks, months, years, decades and centuries to figure out what the best move would be for the collective, but I guarantee you this evidence will raise alarm with other Party members and we will act.

I will go onto say we must hold everyone accountable for illegal war's and war crimes. We must also impeach (again) Clinton for his illegal invasion of Serbia and the illegal arrest of Slobadan Milosevich, don't you agree comrade Crunch? We must also impeach FDR for his illegal invasion of Germany and Truman for Korea and those WAR CRIMINALS KENNEDY AND JOHNSON for Vietnam. All must be impeached! We must be logical and consistent with our struggle to have WORLD PEACE.

This damning evidence must be brought before the world, I suggest we all vote Green or sit out this election in protest, we cannot vote for a Party whose members voted to authorize this war! WE MUST VOTE GREEN! Do you agree comrade Crunch? I think you do, spread the word that we ALL MUST VOTE GREEN!

Advancing progress and world-peace,

Chairman Meowsevich S. Punchenko

 

 

User avatar
[html]Your humor aside.

Yes, we must look at each president's crimes and act accordingly.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Sorry Cap'n. I just spoke with my collegue Seadog and he said that clause of the "Jefferson Manual" is alway trumped by Scottish Law, therefore making your point more or less moot. Seadog, Carlyle, Brunhilde, and Alfie concur with Arlen Specter's analysis, plus the fact that this precedent was set during the Clinton impeachment which was not about Clinton having a sexual affair but lying to a grand jury and perjuring himself. Once a precedent has been made, there is no going back. I hope this doesn't create a mutiny on the Guppy. You should talk to your shipmates more often. Anyhow, welcome aboard the S.S. People's Cube where everybody sails in steerage of the Party and there is no first, second or third class berths.

 

 

User avatar
[html]
Laika the Space Dog wrote:Sorry Cap'n. I just spoke with my collegue Seadog and he said that clause of the "Jefferson Manual" is alway trumped by Scottish Law, therefore making your point more or less mute. Seadog, Carlyle, Brunhilde, and Alfie concur with Arlen Specter's analysis, plus the fact that this precedent was set during the Clinton impeachment which was not about Clinton having a sexual affair but lying to a grand jury and perjuring himself. Once a precedent has been made, there is no going back. I hope this doesn't create a mutiny on the Guppy. You should talk to your shipmates more often. Anyhow, welcome aboard the S.S. People's Cube where everybody sails in steerage of the Party and there is no first, second or third class berths.
Well, you may wish to check again as your analysis is flawed.  The information in this procedure was not only based on the rules as they were passed with this current congress (109th), but has been reviewed by the current Chief Parlimentarian (and his deputy).

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Sorry again, once it leaves the House, it goes to the Senate where Scottish Law has proven it's not proven.
It also depends on what your definition of "is" is. It's all very simple.

 

 

User avatar
[html]You're lack of logic is dizzying.  Scottish Law?  Please.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
It saved Bill Clinton's ass. Read your history.

 

 

User avatar
[html]I've read it, it had nothing to do with Scottish Law.  Impeachment is a political process.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Sorry, wrong again, it's a legislative and legal process (You know, "Rule of Law" "We live in a Republic" and all that other bourgoisie concepts that will be abolished once the Dictatorship of the Proletariate is instituted). Do you have any idea of what I'm referring to? The brilliant legal mind of #1 RINO thought it up, just like the "Magic Bullet".

 

 

User avatar
[html]This conversation is ridiculous.  Impeachment is a political process that was fashioned after the British equivalent (not Scottish).  If you would like to read about Clinton's impeachment trial (held in the Senate), feel free.  I'll give you the link.  You'll find nothing about Scottish law in there.

https://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/sen ... cspub.html

Ridiculous.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
[html]Here's some more links on Clinton's impeachment and trial (links to the House and Senate's websites).  Despite a thorough discussion in them of the procedures to be used, you'll notice no references to Scottish Law.


https://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-b ... n=retrieve

https://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-b ... n=retrieve

https://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/865-880.pdf


<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Voting and elections are a political process, impeachment is a legal process, there's a trial during an impeachment, but please feel free to harshly criticize me more because I feel like I'm getting a real re-education from you. Apparently I'm making up these Scottish Law references. With all that aside, I think Dick Cheney is not fit to become President, that is the goal, correct? Or are we going for a twofer? Impeach Bush & Cheney together? Is this a Pelosi/Rove plot?

 

 

User avatar
[html]Initiating the impeachment process would lead to an investigation that would implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.  No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

Here's an article from the American Political Science Association explaining how it is a political process....
https://www.unt.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/gerhardt.htm

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
But comrade Crunch, we are not interested in what your Rovian masters have to say, we are interested in your unique opinion on why we must move for impeachment and more importantly, how this would make peace. How do you know you are not just spouting Repuglican talking points? Maybe they want you to advocate impeachment to scare voters into voting repuglican out of fear of governmental grid-lock and useless proceedings? Have you asked yourself these questions comrade? Do you really know who you are working for? I think it would be best if we ALL VOTE GREEN this election...... or just sit it out. I feel it more "moral" to just not vote for anyone who has authorized this illegal occupation. The Democrats haven't offered us any solutions, they plan to stay there! We must vote third party, our collective soul is at stake here! What would the children say?? What will they think if we continue to elect people who support this war!? I rest my case...

 

 

User avatar
Gerhardt is wrong, the political process (legislative) created a legal mechanism (impeachment) which follows the rule of law, therefore making it legal. Trials are not political processes and an impeachment is a legal remedy and process. To call it "political" is really quite silly. If you want a political trial, it's called a "purge". I give no creedence to political scientist wonkish double speak, although Gerhardt I'm sure meant well. After all, it feels good to call it a political process.
we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

Does this include the likes of William Jefferson, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy (No, I'm not talking about his manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident, I mean conspiring with the Soviets in May of 1983 to influence the 1984 elections)?
High crimes and misdemeanors?

 

 

User avatar
Laika, I feel in my heart that it does mean we have to hold those accountable. After all, we must use reason and logic, isn’t that what a beingist is all about? We can't simply impeach one man for crimes and let the other's go off scot-free (scottish law, hehehe). They all must have their day in court, which we all know court is a political procedure.

I too agree with the Beingist philosophy, there is no free will, but we must allow the people to exercise choice. Whatever that means???

 

 

User avatar
I channeled the collective consciousness for answers this morning... Yawn... Stretch... The general groupthink gut feeling is that before we do the impeachment we must purge the warmonger Nancy Pelosi lest we want her to become our next Glorious Leader.

The Truth About Nancy Pelosi
https://www.keeferforcongress.com/content/view/32/68/

 

 

User avatar
go off scot-free
Is this some pun making fun of our hallowed Scottish Law?
You cannot botch the Scotch!

 

 

User avatar
I apologize. No, we cannot botch the Scotch, we can drink it, but not botch it. I would also state we should not "botch" the joke either.

(We need to add Janet Reno to the name of war criminals, she clearly used force against peaceful people and infrindged on their civil liberties and possibly engaged in illegal wire-taps of those people. Don't you agree comrade Crunch, or is she excused since she advocates our "secular progressive" utopian dreams?)

 

 

User avatar
Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote

(We need to add Janet Reno to the name of war criminals, she clearly used force against peaceful people and infrindged on there civil liberties and possibly engaged in illegal wire-taps of those people. Don't you agree comrade Crunch, or is she excused since she advocates your "secular progressive" utopian dreams?)

Chairman, you know better than that! The Branch Davidians were Christian wackos, not Islamic wackos. Christian wackos are fair game. Hands off Islamofascism!

 

 


 

User avatar
Well, I for one don't like the idea of impeaching a president. Don't you know impeaching a president would overturn the will of the people? It would be stealing an election! Impeaching a president is tantamount to a coup! I seem to remember these arguments from a few years ago; very respectable people in high places made these arguments.

 

 

User avatar
Margaret wrote:Well, I for one don't like the idea of impeaching a president. Don't you know impeaching a president would overturn the will of the people? It would be stealing an election! Impeaching a president is tantamount to a coup! I seem to remember these arguments a few years ago; very respectable people in high places made these arguments.

Holy Darwin, father of macaca, you missed the point! Comrade Margaret, we aren't stealing, we are simply taking back an election that was stolen from us when we stole it fair and square to begin with. Results show that many necro-proxie votes were not counted in either 2000 or 2004. Let us not forget the army of jackbooted storm troopers that stood outside polling stations to drive away legitmate voters who wanted to vote AFTER the polls closed. We have to think of them, they wanted to vote, but they wanted to vote after it was clear that Bushitler had won.

This year the Party has taken extra precautions, we have ensured that the necro-proxy vote will not go uncounted in Missouri, the central front on the war for progress. Which I will note is a "moral war", whereas a war for freedom is a "immoral war". This whole beingism philosophy is brilliant, my mind is open and I am now making arguments using logic, reason and hypocrisy.

 

 

User avatar
Beingism is the highest being of beingism and being a beingist, I should know!
"Free will", how goofy an idea! Especially when you go into a polling place and cast a vote! Free will indeed! What did the Founding Fathers say about "free will"? No such thing! Right? And I'm talking about Marx and Engels, not Jefferson and those other hacks.

 

 

User avatar
Your Excellency, once again your shrill voice commands obedience, Free will does not exist, unless it is in the form of murder/debauchery/election rigging/high taxes or internal gut parasite removal (CHOICE!), which are all forms of progressive free will, the nurturing of humyn desire which fosters happiness. When will the reich-wing learn that we have a monopoly of reason, logic and the moral authority to back it up. Comrade Crunch, abandon your false faith in beingism and accept the ultimate being, Her Excellency H.R.C, who will ensure you stem cells to cure all your deformities, warts, uncleanliness and other progressive ailments.

 

 

User avatar
Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote:...stem cells to cure all your deformities, warts, uncleanliness and other progressive ailments.
What about clap? Can embryonic cells cure clap? Then I shall vote, using all of my "free will" quota allowed to me by Historical Inevitability! What about syphilis and Chlamydia?

It would only be moral to kill more embryos in order to cure our ailing embryo-making tools - because without them there'll be no embryos! I think I just came up with an ultimate moral argument against the reactionary Bible-thumping right-wingers!

 

 

User avatar
What I find most interesting about the discussion here isn't the debate on impeachment, it is this new interpretation of impeachment as a political process. I think there's a lot more at work than simply the impeachment of a president. There's another issue here that's worming it's way to the surface.

I went to the link provided by Comrade Crunch: (https://www.unt.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/gerhardt.htm). He termed it "an article explaining how it is a political process." Actually it's a link to book review about a book that expounds the theory that  impeachment is a political process. This from the review:

...the book emphasizes the original understanding and current potential of the impeachment process as a unique congressional power. Impeachment is a political process designed to investigate, expose, and remedy political crimes committed by a special class of politicians subject to unique political punishments...
[emphasis mine]

Political crime has never been a part of the American system of government. In fact "political crime" is so anti-American a concept as to be laughable. No one has ever been impeached in America for "political crimes." Do you see what's going on here? This is a backdoor method of making the idea of "political crime" acceptable. This is a very exciting development and is certain to help the Party and totalitarianism. Thank-you Comrade Crunch!

*************************************************************

Just as an aside: The "unique political punishments" are simply "Judgement in such 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..." US Constitution - These aren't political punishments, the disqualifications weren't awarded because of political views, they are personal punishments. A big difference.

 

 

User avatar
See what we can accomplish when we put our minds together collectively? We can take the most absurd concept and reshape it to conform whatever flavor of the month agenda we may have for the Amerikan people. It's progressive brilliance, sheer progressive brilliance. At this level of "groupthink-tank" results, we are the most powerful policy makers in the country. I don't see that hack Koz or those peons at the Center for American Progress turning out this kind of mind power. Yes, political crimes is what we must acheive. If you vote down tax hikes you are in violation of political crime. If you say the dreaded G word, you are in violation of political crime. Brilliant!

Let's be intellectual and create a formula to prove ourselves.

Let AC represent Absurd Concept while PL represents progressive logic (the ultimate weapon of moral authority).

Therefore, if we were to take AC+PL it would yield whatever you want.

Examples Given:

Impeachment+PL= political procedure

Higher tempratures+PL= global warming

Macaca+PL= Evolution

The list goes on, we can create something out of nothing and nothing out of something. Who could oppose us? Ain't no one smartier! NO ONE!

 

 

User avatar
We must have this genius CausalCrunch at our upcoming purg...er I mean "Impeachment" of Nancy Pantaloons. Together with Krissy's rock hard evidence and CausalCrunch's logic on political procedings plus the Iron Fist of the Party, shall I go on?

 

 


 

User avatar
I retract my previously expressed thought. Consider it a non-thought. If we can impeash Bushitler, we can also use this tool to impeach Nancy Pantaloons, and everyone else who takes that post - and a new one, and the one after that, until everybody just gets so tired of the futility of completely useless elections, that they'll abandon all thoughs of free will and agree to be ruled by Krissy Keefer (that's when Krissy shall be removed in a bloodless coup and eaten by HRC).

OT: Is it just me or is Nancy Pantaloons a nice title for a folk song about a tragic demise of a girl named Nancy Pantaloons who strayed too far to the right of Krissy Keefer? Just a thought.

 

 

User avatar
A theme song? Yes! That's brilliant. We must have songs, posters, greeting cards, t-shirts, dancing drag queens, fire works, poll questions and mass games to hype up the Great Purge of 2006. We must let the whole universe know that the Party will not tolerate defeat or ideological lapses. Failure, yes. Defeat? NO!

 

 

User avatar
No, an interpretive dance as the purge. Break out your Little Red Book! Madam Krissy shall lead us in this next incarnation of the Cultural Revolution complete with everything mentioned by Chairman Meow. Poems! Yes, more poems! We'll purge Paisley Pantaloons with poems and dance! We'll have a Commie Caberet...a Socialist Soiree!
OK everyone, places!
Lights!
And....
One, two, three, swish.
One, two, three, mince.
One, two, three, swish.
Cut! Stop the action!
Comrade Otis, you need to work it more, babe! More penache! More Ginger Rogers! More feeling!
Oh, I think I'm going to faint. Where's my smelling salts.
Take ten people, I'll be in my dressing room.

 

 

User avatar
[html]I'm glad you guys amuse yourselves so much with your ability to twist an argument until the truth is unrecognizable.  The truth is very easily obtained about the nature of impeachment.  It is a political process which came to us from England.  It's based on the idea of "High Crimes" which is about political crimes.  Or, crimes which are able to be commited by a unique subsection of society, politicians.  They are able to commit them because of the public trust we afford them.  And are therefore held to a higher standard.  The limited consequences of impeachment including removal from their POLITICAL office is purposeful.  It's a political consequence.  They can not be imprisoned, because it's not that type of trial.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch wrote

They can not be imprisoned, because it's not that type of trial.

Where in the Hell is the FUN in that? And I'm not that type of girl too, buster!

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch blathered

It's a political consequence

Are crimes illegal? Did Rowland go to prison? Were there plans to send Nixon to jail? Or Clinton? Just because a person may hold a high office does't mean they can't be imprisoned. No shit Shirley! Impeachment is removal from office, based on criminal activity, not political, making it a legal process involving the rule of law. And yes, impeached or unimpeached politicians can go to jail. Yes, Dillwad, there would be a seperate criminal trial (yet another legal process) which would decide on incarceration or aquittal.
Now I'm going to make this as fucking simple as I possibly can. Crimes are illegal, to have an impeachment, there must be a crime. To remedy an illegality, there must be a legal process. To remove an elected offical from office, that legal process is called impeachment. Get it?

 

 

User avatar
[html]No crime need be committed to impeach.  Look it up.
I never said they couldn't be imprisoned.  That would happen, however, as a result of a criminal hearing.

a "High Crime" is not a crime in our criminal justice system.  Again, it's an English term reserved for the failing in one's office (which COULD be the result of breaking a law) by abusing the unique power that comes with the public trust we've given to them.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
They can not be imprisoned,
I never said they couldn't be imprisoned
Just who the hell are you, John Kerry?
I shall grant you the premise that you can impeach on the grounds of failure to uphold an oath, which may not be criminal. Malfeasance, moral terpitude, blah, blah...rarely, if ever done, it's still a legal remedy, a legal process. An end to a means.
I guess what you're really trying to say is Bush is not a criminal but let's impeach him anyway.

Now go away silly knigget, or we shall taunt you a second time.

 

 

User avatar
[html]Dude, you are quite the Rovian spin meister.  Talk about out-of-context theater.  The first quote was about the impeachment process.  At least try to be a little honest.  Or pay attention, whatever the problem is.

And no need to fret.  Bush is a criminal.

Evidence:
https://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Coming from a Barking Moonbat, thanks for the compliment! But no, it's just language and logic. Depends on your definition of "can not" I guess......Dude, as honest as a Democrat.

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch wrote:I'm glad you guys amuse yourselves so much with your ability to twist an argument until the truth [emphasis mine] is unrecognizable.  The truth [emphasis mine] is very easily obtained about the nature of impeachment.

I'm very disappointed in you, Comrade Crunch.  You use the word "truth" with the conviction of a bigoted theocon.  You must know that this reactionary concept is predicated on both metaphysical realism and epistemological objectivity – two philosophical beliefs that are anathema to the leftist hardliners here at the Cube.  I mean, come on, man; "truth" – you can't get anymore bourgeois than that!  

You must realize, as the inner circle of the Party does, that there is no objective reality. "Truth" and "facts" are purely subjective; they are the products of a given culture’s social constructs and are deployed as weapons in the class struggle.  We will certainly not have your "truth" imposed on us.  Here, the Party determines what is "true" and what is not, and it is subject to change at any moment.  We use "truth" to transgress the boundaries of the traditional power structure!  Thus, our subjectivist "truth" is superior to your objectivist "truth" because we speak "truth" to power.

The so-called "truth" of which you speak is merely a capitalist tool used in the oppression of peoples worldwide.  Refer to the work of Gramsci: this is cultural hegemony in action – the elite trick the proles into accepting pernicious meta-narratives that justify existing power relations.  As a result, the proles are unwittingly complicit in their own marginalization.  

But have no fear!  We will help you purge these insidious ideas from your head.  Please report to a Karl Marx Treatment Center for heavy Thorazine therapy followed by a seminar on postmodernist thought.

--Dr. P

 

 

User avatar
Welcome to Bogus Impeachment Evidence Jeopardy.

1st Question: Who is Richard Armitage?

 

 

User avatar
Ohh Ohh...I know that one!

[edit] Valerie Plame investigation
Main article: Plame affair
Journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that "a government official with no ax to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," though Bradlee later told the Post that he "[did] not recall making that precise statement" in the interview.[5]

On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.[6]

On August 21, 2006, the Associated Press published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.[7]

In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much," journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities," reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak's piece outing Plame; Armitage apparently mentioned Ms. Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview.[8] Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively," but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward."

Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[9]

Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[5] According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[10]

On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.[11] On August 30th 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Ms. Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak. [12] The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions," reported that Armitage was unaware of Ms. Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.[13]

The Times claims that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed that Armitage was involved on October 2, 2003, but asked not to be told details. Patrick Fitzgerald began his grand jury investigation three months later knowing Armitage was a leaker (as did Attorney General John Ashcroft before turning over the investigation). According to lawyers close to I. Lewis Libby, charged in October 2005 with perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak investigation, "the information about Mr. Armitage’s role may help Mr. Libby convince a jury that his actions were relatively inconsequential".[14] Fitzgerald has issued no statement about Armitage's involvement, and as of August 2006, the CIA leak investigation remains open.

On September 7th Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak. [15] Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented. [16]

In a review of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, which hit book stores in early September, 2006, Novak wrote: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's original source], but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV, who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary."[6]

 

 

User avatar
Who is like Dr. Palimpsest? Who I ask? I am a card carrying member of the reality based community (where we openly accept the idea that there is no reality.) and I must conclude comrade Crunch that your meager weak liberal ideas are no match to the power of the collective force of the Party. All we need to back our arguments is a few scholarly works and a formula. This forum alone is a scholarly work which would then render it as a text for future generations in all our fine establishments for "higher learning", High learning must be an English concept as well, if not I will say it is. I will also say that it is a political procedure and the sky is green.

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch wrote: It's based on the idea of "High Crimes" which is about political crimes.  

Yes yes!!! Comrade Crunch is correct!!  We must promote this idea of Political Crime.  For what is a Political Crime but a crime against the very people, since it is the common masses who put people into power through elections.  And if Political Crime is a crime against the people, it is therefore a crime against the Party, since the Party is the Party of the people!!  We must also promote that Political Crime cannot be reserved for only politicians, since it would separate and divide the people. NO ONE IS DIFFERENT (one of the mantras of the Party), so therefore everyone can be charged with Political Crime, for everyone has the potential to violate the public trust by committing acts with are antithetical to the Party.  And because I'm tired of typing Political Crime (as I'm sure countless bureaucrats will too in the future) I shall now simply call it Thoughtcrime.  There, much better don't you agree comrades?  So to conclude:

Thoughtcrime:  Committing acts which violate the public trust by denouncing or causing someone else to denounce, through deed or word, principles of the Party which have been put in place for the good of the Nation and therefore the People.

Ready the Gulags, we are about to have a mass influx of persons!!!


O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

 

User avatar
Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote:Who is like Dr. Palimpsest? Who I ask? I am a card carrying member of the reality based community (where we openly accept the idea that there is no reality.) and I must conclude comrade Crunch that your meager weak liberal ideas are no match to the power of the collective force of the Party. All we need to back our arguments is a few scholarly works and a formula.

Ah, Chairman, it takes an immeasurable amount of courage to look the self-referential inconsistency--the idea that claiming there is no objective truth is in effect presuming an objective truth--in the eyes and not blink.  Logic and reason are but two tools one can use to try to make sense of a senseless, orderless world and they are inherently no better than the other options at our disposal.  I prefer peyote, myself.

Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote:I will also say that...the sky is green.

It is green; you're not kidding, either.  And red and yellow and orange and purple. I mean magenta, saffron, tangerine, and fuschia.  It's like a freakin' kaleidoscope. The colors are so intense.  Wait.  Did you hear that sound?  There it goes again. Oh, nevermind.  Hey man, checkout that tree. Is it waving at me?  Look, there's Foucault sitting on a llama and smoking a non-pipe. I thought he was Voting Democrat.  Whoa.  

Trippin' out in an equally worthy alternative reality,

--Dr. P

 

 

User avatar
[html]There's an extra warm fuzzy one gets when one wins a ideological argument on the opponent's own turf.  :-)

Good day.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
Fuzzy one? Like Tim Kaines eye brow? Lenin bless Tim Kaines eye brow, such a magnificent creature and one who knows what it is talking about. Moving on, you have won nothing comrade Crunch. You said an impeachment is a political process when it is not; it is a legal process with political consequences. But it is like the weak liberals to declare victory when nothing of real value was actually won. You know what, I will declare victory. Comrades, I declare victory! Name something, and I shall have victory over it! Take apple pie for instance; I declare victory over apple pie!

So what did we learn children? We learned that impeachment is a legal process with political consequences; we also learned that a liberal who can't win the argument will throw his/her/it/toaster’s hands (or plugs) in the air and declare victory when nothing was won or achieved. You see, the goal is to bring the other side around to your viewpoint, not surrender and say we won.

 

 

User avatar
Declare victory over crappy video games based on movies!

 

 

User avatar
I declare victory over crappy games based on movies! (Although I haven't played Scarface yet).

 

 

User avatar
Can I declare victory over the Smurfs?  Those little blue bastards with their skipping about and 'La la laing' to and fro.  Just makes we want to go into a purging frenzy and I don't quite know why.  Maybe it's because they're blue....it might be better if they were red and had a little hammer and sickle on those hats of theirs.....

O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

 

User avatar
(Although I haven't played Scarface yet).

Neither have I, but usually if the movie is really famous or something and has been out a long time, the developers tend to take it more seriously.

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch, who goes soggy and stays soggy in the milk of truth, wrote

There's an extra warm fuzzy one gets when one wins a ideological argument on the opponent's own turf.  

Good day.

Hardly, you got crushed Crunch unless....unless....you won by losing!
I hope Crunch Flake found out who Richard Armitage was though, all the other sheepdip liberals have no clue. And by the way, that warm fuzzy one is Cindy Sheehan sitting on Crunch's face.

 

 

Komrad R. Square,
I propose that the Central Dictator of the Proletariat, Madame Hillary, issue a new Peoples' Medal and award for Excellence in Agitation Propaganda!
Candidates for this award will demonstrate unparalleled yet superior to none -abilities to rewrite any version of vile capitalist-bourgeoise lies, concoct progressive new reality from nothing (excluding information gleaned from progressive sources such as the news media (which is of course the only real reality and truth - because the dictator of prot says so and she has the FCC by the yaitso to do her bidding should anyone get any ideas about propagating anything other than highest ideals of social justice), progressive think-tanks, blog seminars, and the like). Winners of this award will receive a full time position in the Soros anti-Western agitprop department  blogging full time with pay (derived from tax revenues garnered from the exploiters of all minority workers and non-specific gender interests of the world), a 20 meter square dacha on the Peoples Most and Greatest Progressive Hootorok of Arkansas -complete with dry flush toilet, and fresh running water,  as well as year-long sabatocal to Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia and Kyrgistan - to further research results of the progressive doctrines in highest forms, plus, free lifetime membership in Gay Progressive Marxists for Islam organization recently formed by the Union of People Equal but Better than Everyone Else of Massachusetts.  
Finally - to the Kollektive - nominate as first recipient of this medal and award - Komrad CasualCrunch!

 

 

So let me see if I got this right all the fun I.E. vacations, work programs,peasant testings and other gulag related things we do for fun have all been purged because I haven't declared victory over an idealogy argument that I'm not sure I won or lost I'm so hurt and confused anyone have state sponsored vodka ....

 

 

User avatar
that warm fuzzy one is Cindy Sheehan sitting on Crunch's face.

It's a jungle down there....

 

 

User avatar
Premier Betty wrote:
that warm fuzzy one is Cindy Sheehan sitting on Crunch's face.

It's a jungle down there....

A horrible,  unkempt jungle...once again, Premier, thanks for the visual.

Hmmm I hate to think of what's worse...Sheehan's, Krissy's, or Fancy Pants'...the horror!!!

A trifecta of sour sn*tch.

 

 

User avatar
General Ivan wrote:So let me see if I got this right all the fun I.E. vacations, work programs,peasant testings and other gulag related things we do for fun have all been purged because I haven't declared victory over an idealogy argument that I'm not sure I won or lost I'm so hurt and confused anyone have state sponsored vodka ....

Here's my spare ration, General...salute!

 

 

User avatar
[html]"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 

User avatar
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984
Talk about out-of-context theater
Islam is the Religion of Peace
-Every pinhead socialist liberal with BDS

Gee, where did you find the cute little cliche, Crunch? At the bottom of the moronic Impeachforpeace website? How original. When are they going to remove the last listed "fact" of evidence from this site? (All the others can be debunked very easily also)
Hint-Richard Armitage.
I figured I'd start at the bottom of that fucked up "Evidence List" since most people save their best for last. Shall we work our way up and make you cry like a little girl who has to go potty?
I'll grant you that Bush is not the most eloquent President and sometimes he doesn't convey what he means. At least he understands history and for somebody to use "Causal" in their nom de guerre, you certainly have a dim understanding of that premise.
I feel sorry for you, you have a lot of growing up to do.
You can start by reading Winston Spencer Churchill's The Gathering Storm.
After that, read Robert Massey's Dreadnought. This will be of great help to your socialist pickeled brain. At that point, you might, just might understand what Georges Santayana was writing about.
Cheers! Here's to hope!

 

 

User avatar
<Comrade Otis OFF>

Oh, Comrade Crunch is back. Comrade Crunch, when you wish to share something witty that you've found on a website, like those quotes, the proper way to do it is to put the work of others in a quote box along with a weblink to the site. Otherwise it creates the appearance that you are pretending to be the originator.

I looked over the evidence at the website you've provided. Personally, I don't think you have a chance. It's all really quite specious. But, as you say, impeachment is a political process. If you had a knowledge of America's founding documents you would've at some time in your life read the Federalist Papers and would know of Federalist Paper No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton.

http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/ava ... /fed65.htm

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

I was waiting for you to bring that up but you never did; your knowledge seems to be limited to what has been posted by others and not history. So, I bring it up. And I bring it up for a reason.

In No. 65 Hamilton was of course writing before the Consititution was ratified and was making arguments to convince people to vote for it. Here he was making the case that those elected officials who broke public trust would be dealt with by impeachment - but, more importantly, he was making the case that those who held the power of trying impeachment, the Senate, were, by nature of their unique office as representatives of States, less influenced by the politics of "faction" as they said at the time, and so were the best judge for impeachments. I urge you to read No. 65.

This is no longer true of the Senate. Senators now are elected by the people of the states and not by the legislators of the states. This has created a completely different composition of the Senate than what the Founders envisioned. And it has consequences. In the case of impeachment it completely invalidates Hamilton's arguments for the Senate as the judge of impeachments. As was witnessed by Clinton's impeachment the democrats turned the entire thing into a farce. As it stands now, the Senate as an instrument of impeachment is nothing more than faction against faction - and if the democrats are in charge it'll be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

<Comrade Otis ON>

 

 

User avatar
CausalCrunch wrote:"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

[/O'Brien]

What continually amazes me is the sheer ignorance of the progressive mind.  They remember some quote 'War is Peace' that they were forced to read in school, and when they hear Bush say something similar, the little mouse runs through their dusty brain and somehow connects the two.  So they slap it on some slogan and the mindless drones parrot it without a second thought reminiscent of zombies in Night of the Living Dead (Braaaiiiinsss).  

Unfortunately they do not take the time to truely understand what it is they are parroting.  For a refresher on 'War is Peace' this Ministry of Truth mantra is fully explained in 1984 in Chapter 9.

In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

You can read the entire chapter here.

Bush talking, as was mentioned before he's not the most eloquent speaker, was referring to bringing peace to a region by destroying the nut jobs who want to kill anything that isn't them.  Orwell, in 'War is Peace', is obviously referring to the war within the society of 1984 in which the Inner Party is waging against the normal citizens to keep them in line.  By warring with Eastasia or Eurasia, they are effectively using up the excess production and wealth that would normally pass to the people and improve their situation in life and would eventually cause them to rise up against the Party.  Don't take my word for it, read it yourself, the chapter goes into much more depth on the whole matter.  So therefore by waging WAR they are insuring PEACE within Oceania for themselves.

Never ever again spout your nonsense and try backing it up by misquoting or twisting the words of my beloved Ministry of Truth.

[O'Brien]

O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

 

User avatar
- Next time on The Truth Hurts, comrade Cruch will link Goldstein from Orwell's 1984 as the leader of the Zionist entity that is undermining progress and exterminating palestianians.

STAY TUNED!

( Be careful Comrade Otis, we all know how the left likes to "interpret" founding documents.)

 

 

User avatar
Chairman Meow S. Pun wrote:( Be careful Comrade Otis, we all know how the left likes to "interpret" founding documents.)

How true. How true.

 

 

User avatar
The truth is maleable, and so should the founding documents be!!

 

 

User avatar
The truth is maleable, and so should the founding documents be!!

Yes! And what makes "The Truth" maleable? The Iron Fist of the Party!

 

 

I see a good part of reality has ecaped the forum all together.... The truth no matter how well documented or refined can be maligned or twisted to fit whatever agenda the left has a gross projection of. The big part of the problem is that no matter what crunch says the collective wins because we all know that Red Square has an awesome web site that really pisses the left off so bad that they send the greatest intellectual juggernaut since Goober aired On MayBerry ....and all he accomplished is make the collective shine like Red Sqaure on Soviet Independence day ...now I have to get back to my genitial shock treatment... Betty I haven't seen a damn thing about a new Mark???Field Marshall what could the left have done to make so many people want to think??? Chairman I call for a special metting with Food and beer (Kimchie and sausage)maybe outside for obvious reasons....Laika we will make special provisions for you ...

 

 

User avatar
Dr. W. S. Palimpsest wrote:Logic and reason are but two tools one can use to try to make sense of a senseless, orderless world and they are inherently no better than the other options at our disposal. I prefer peyote, myself.
You forget Marxism as one of the tools to interpret a senseless, orderless world. We find peyote philosophy rather decadent and bourgeois, but for now we are content to use it as our ally in class struggle. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We see peyote adepts as useful... fellow travelers. Besides, peyote is a gateway drug to Marxism. But once we collectively defeat logic and reason, we'll find ways to make people switch from peyote to a more proper opiate for the masses.

 

 

User avatar
[html]It's amazing how well you distract yourself from the truth with the sound of your own aplause.

<img src=https://www.thirdwayblog.com/images/400/troll.0.jpg width=100>[/html]

 

 


 
POST REPLY