Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is what happens when impeachment is "off the table." [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)110. I don't think the OP is suggesting attempting retroactive impeachment. As has been noted upthread,
there is no statute of limitations on war crimes. And there's no statute of limitations on public opinion, either.
I don't think that's ever going to happen, either, but I think either of those two would be a more realistic reading of why the OP wants inquiries than retroactive impeachment.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
137 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This is what happens when impeachment is "off the table." [View all]
Fantastic Anarchist
Jun 2014
OP
I'm not so sure that the Senate at the time, and given charges that actually were serious,
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#113
And they only hold one half of one branch of government (well, two with the SC) ...
Fantastic Anarchist
Jun 2014
#38
They won't actually do it. What they will try to do is make political hay from this
totodeinhere
Jun 2014
#14
Exactly, which is just as effective as if they actually impeached him.
Fantastic Anarchist
Jun 2014
#39
Yea, but the Democrats do not have to allow them the control of the message, they
Jefferson23
Jun 2014
#49
It was an observation, not an excuse. If I were an excuser, I would not have posted Reply #11.
merrily
Jun 2014
#29
" I fail to see how that is significantly different than what has actually happened,"
merrily
Jun 2014
#91
As Stewart might, say, "You seem nice." Please see replies 29, 58, 60, 89 and 91.
merrily
Jun 2014
#92
No, as opposed to mutally-assured, near total destruction. Please see Reply 92
merrily
Jun 2014
#106
No, they were ugly. They tortured. They lied the country into a war. Not acting is complicity.
grahamhgreen
Jun 2014
#120
It might be nice if former Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders said few words on her behalf.
merrily
Jun 2014
#62
Thankfully more and more of the rest of the world hold Cheney/Bush more to account than
maddiemom
Jun 2014
#117
Several posts on this thread make clear why that did not happen and will never happen.
merrily
Jun 2014
#93
Again, have you read the thread? And, with all due respect, if you really believe it's a FACT that
merrily
Jun 2014
#133
And because, when it comes to their behavior, we really don't have an "opposition party" ...
Fantastic Anarchist
Jun 2014
#53
This is one thing I've NEVER forgiven Pelosi for, and have not had much use for her since.
Ghost in the Machine
Jun 2014
#59
Honestly, I think they were grooming JEB long before they were the shrub, but JEB blew it in Florida
Ghost in the Machine
Jun 2014
#86
This should make it firm that NEVER AGAIN will we "look forward" for a Republican official!
cascadiance
Jun 2014
#127
Well we're certainly not going to get any justice with another Clinton administration. Count on it.
YOHABLO
Jun 2014
#96
I don't think the OP is suggesting attempting retroactive impeachment. As has been noted upthread,
merrily
Jun 2014
#110
Whether the President actually wanted to look forward as he did, or, alternatively,
Enthusiast
Jun 2014
#100
Both parties have enough on each other and Clinton and Obama each followed in the footsteps
merrily
Jun 2014
#111
Criminal prosecution for crimes such as TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE, would have been an easy place to
grahamhgreen
Jun 2014
#121
I really don't have any evidence pointing me to believe that these same republicans wouldn't...
LanternWaste
Jun 2014
#122
What would have been your plan for getting the 67 votes needed to convict in the Senate?
bluestateguy
Jun 2014
#126