PDA

View Full Version : Did you know Ron Paul voted "YES" on impeachment?




wgadget
06-12-2008, 06:17 AM
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll401.xml

SnappleLlama
06-12-2008, 06:19 AM
That's my man!

IRO-bot
06-12-2008, 06:20 AM
There is grounds for impeachment. Ron is sound in this.

LibertyEagle
06-12-2008, 06:21 AM
:)

My worthless congressman voted NO, of course. :mad:

Ok, that's 24 Republicans that we probably ought to keep; the rest of them need to be booted at the next election.

SnappleLlama
06-12-2008, 06:24 AM
:)

My worthless congressman voted NO, of course. :mad:

Ok, that's 24 Republicans that we probably ought to keep; the rest of them need to be booted at the next election.

yeah, my congressman voted "neigh" like the horse he is.....

...wait, what?

*desperately seeking caffeine*

freelance
06-12-2008, 06:26 AM
Flake and Tancredo didn't vote.

IChooseLiberty
06-12-2008, 06:29 AM
What percentage is needed to impeach? 2/3's I'm guessing since they only got 60%

IRO-bot
06-12-2008, 06:31 AM
Dave Weldon (FL) - NO.

YOU SUCK DAVE!!!!!

A Ron Paul Rebel
06-12-2008, 06:32 AM
so what's the next step?

LibertyEagle
06-12-2008, 06:35 AM
What percentage is needed to impeach? 2/3's I'm guessing since they only got 60%

What Wikipedia says ....

"The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


so what's the next step?

"Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "Guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."

rpfan2008
06-12-2008, 06:49 AM
because that was the right thing to do

LittleLightShining
06-12-2008, 07:12 AM
Why is the bill called " The Kucinich Privilege Resolution"?

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 07:16 AM
Dem "blow back" paybacks for Bubba. :rolleyes: Won't convict in the Senate this time ...................... either. :p No new "bad" precedent setting is allowed!

OptionsTrader
06-12-2008, 08:03 AM
He didn't "vote yes on impeachment" per se. Bad title.

Carole
06-12-2008, 08:10 AM
Well, it would be a joke if Cheney ultimately presided over the impeachment proceedings since he is at least half responsible for policies that incurred it. :rolleyes:

Join The Paul Side
06-12-2008, 08:12 AM
:)

My worthless congressman voted NO, of course. :mad:

Ok, that's 24 Republicans that we probably ought to keep; the rest of them need to be booted at the next election.

Exactly! Now I know which fake ass Republicans in my state to vote against.

I demand the mods, in the name of the Ron Paul Revolution, to Sticky this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is exactly what Dr. Paul intended for us to do when this Revolution started. Find out which neocons were posing as Conservatives and vote them motherfuckers out. Period!

Now we have a list of which sons of bitches deserve to get tossed out on their ass.

Pssssst......Do something!!!!!!!

:mad:

SnappleLlama
06-12-2008, 08:13 AM
Well, it would be a joke if Cheney ultimately presided over the impeachment proceedings since he is at least half responsible for policies that incurred it. :rolleyes:

Would he even be allowed to preside over these proceedings, or would Nancy Pelosi (gag) have to do this? Anyone know?

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 08:14 AM
Well, it would be a joke if Cheney ultimately presided over the impeachment proceedings since he is at least half responsible for policies that incurred it. :rolleyes:
Supreme Court, Chief Justice, presides over Senate Presidential Impeachment trials. :)

Join The Paul Side
06-12-2008, 08:15 AM
Would he even be allowed to preside over these proceedings, or would Nancy Pelosi (gag) have to do this? Anyone know?

Pelosi? Impeach that bitch too! :mad:

SnappleLlama
06-12-2008, 08:16 AM
Supreme Court, Chief Justice, presides over Senate Presidential Impeachment trials. :)


Ahhh....I understand, now. I obviously wasn't paying attention when Clinton was impeached...

SnappleLlama
06-12-2008, 08:17 AM
Pelosi? Impeach that bitch too! :mad:

ROFL!!! :D

Rangeley
06-12-2008, 08:18 AM
What Wikipedia says ....

"The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment



"Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "Guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."
Actually, you skipped an important step.

The resolution was brought to the floor Monday under privileged status, requiring the chamber to act on it in within two days.

The House voted 251 to 166 to send it to the House Judiciary Committee, effectively killing the effort because it is unlikely to undergo hearings before President Bush leaves office.

Since taking control of Congress, Democratic leaders, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular, have declined to support impeachment saying it would only be divisive and interfere with their agenda, a position reiterated Wednesday by a Pelosi spokesman.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-11-voa59.cfm

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 08:27 AM
Fire 'em all. :p

parke
06-12-2008, 08:30 AM
Gene Taylor voted yes... Oh yea.. EVERY democrat voted yes.

Conza88
06-12-2008, 08:32 AM
Gene Taylor voted yes... Oh yea.. EVERY democrat voted yes.

The illusions of change continue..


http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/Beach_Impeach_03.jpeg

Jason726
06-12-2008, 10:53 AM
This is all just a show if you ask me. I don' t think anything of value will come of this, and of course, the MSM isn't even covering this. I haven't seen a single mention of it, and I've been watching CNN for the last 2 hours.

demolama
06-12-2008, 11:35 AM
mine voted yes... but Mr. Gilchrest losts his primary so this is his last term in office

AJ Antimony
06-12-2008, 11:45 AM
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached by the House, but no President has ever been removed from office by the Senate.

Maverick
06-12-2008, 11:56 AM
So, this is going to be just as worthless as the Cheney impeachment resolution, right?

Dorfsmith
06-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Flake and Tancredo didn't vote.


Whick Flake? I know the older Flake died last week.

AJ Antimony
06-12-2008, 12:03 PM
Whick Flake? I know the older Flake died last week.

Arizona's Flake. He was probably in town for his father and missed the vote.

Knightskye
06-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Umm, Ron's name isn't on there.

I only found "Paul Harman".

Someone want to show me where it says Ron Paul?

JoshLowry
06-12-2008, 12:12 PM
Umm, Ron's name isn't on there.

I only found "Paul Harman".

Someone want to show me where it says Ron Paul?

3rd column, 9th from the top.

Knightskye
06-12-2008, 12:48 PM
3rd column, 9th from the top.

Sorry, I thought that column had the first name, and the second one had the last name. Now I get it. It's all last names. Thanks. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLVhgm_glc

Ron said if there was evidence, he'd vote for impeachment. I guess Dennis laid it out well enough for him.

Jeremy
06-12-2008, 12:55 PM
We better get ready for Chris Peden's attack of this in 2 years.

TruthisTreason
06-12-2008, 12:57 PM
:)

My worthless congressman voted NO, of course. :mad:

Ok, that's 24 Republicans that we probably ought to keep; the rest of them need to be booted at the next election.

My congressman couldn't use the constitution to start a fire. He voted no.

FrankRep
06-12-2008, 01:07 PM
Email your congress rep and ask them why they voted no.

Yom
06-12-2008, 01:38 PM
This wasn't a vote for impeachment, per se but to send it to the House Judiciary committee for consideration. Of course, they will kill it.

MusoSpuso
06-12-2008, 01:45 PM
This wasn't a vote for impeachment, per se but to send it to the House Judiciary committee for consideration. Of course, they will kill it.

Who's on the house judiciary committee? Anyone have a link? :confused:

(found it)

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

Looks like dems outgun reps on the committee which is good, BUT...what kind of majority is needed within the committee to move forward with impeachment?

cayton
06-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Nice work, Rep Walter B Jones (R). Dont agree with a lot that you do, but you sir are slowly coming around.