Impeach Impeachment Of Testimony

Discrediting a witness by proving lies, inconsistencies in stories told, and untrustworthiness. The witness may be impeached during cross-examination or by the direct testimony or evidence of another witness. See Direct and Cross Examination. Prior inconsistent statements made at a deposition or in written interrogatories are classic examples of impeachment during cross-examination. In Camera Hearing. A closed-door hearing in judge?s chambers, usually concerning sensitive child-related issues.

Question: Rod Blagojevich Impeachment...How does it affect America? I need some different opinions about this article for a report in school. Why should America care about this, what does it say, and how does it affect us? CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An Illinois legislative committee Thursday unanimously recommended impeaching embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich amid corruption allegations. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich may face federal corruption charges. Blagojevich was arrested last month after federal prosecutors alleged, among other things, that he tried to sell the Senate seat President-elect Barack Obama vacated. The issue will now be taken up by the full Illinois state House of Representatives. "Today is the day that we begin to give back democracy to the people of the state of Illinois," Democratic Rep. Jack Franks said as he cast his "aye" vote. Blagojevich "has been AWOL and derelict of his duties. He has abused his powers, and he has brought shame to this great state," Franks said. "I believe that Rod Blagojevich is a liar, and I believe he is a thief," Franks said. "He has stolen the trust of the people." The committee heard testimony Thursday afternoon from Roland Burris, the man Blagojevich appointed to succeed President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. Burris denied any quid pro quo with Blagojevich for his appointment to the U.S. Senate. Burris, former attorney general for Illinois, is not accused of engaging in "pay-to-play" politics with Blagojevich. Blagojevich denies any wrongdoing and has rejected calls for his resignation. Don't Miss Burris denies quid pro quo for Senate appointment Illinois GOP wants closer look at Burris, Blagojevich ties Democrat: Blagojevich 'called our bluff' "I would have appreciated it if he had stepped aside, and we would not have been made the laughing stock of the country," said Rep. Mary Flowers, another Democrat. She noted, however, that the governor is "innocent until proven guilty." The 21-member committee looked into Blagojevich's actions on a number of issues beyond the federal allegations, including an allegation he withheld state money from a children's hospital until he received a $50,000 campaign donation. Rep. Chapin Rose, a Republican, called the alleged behavior "repugnant." "The report speaks for itself and contains many, many, many acts that I find, and most of my colleagues find, to be impeachable," Rose said. "The evidence is overwhelmingly damning, and with that I vote aye," he said. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald initiated a criminal complaint against Blagojevich after listening to wiretaps of the governor's phone conversations. Blagojevich was arrested December 9, but has not been indicted. A federal judge in Chicago told Fitzgerald he has until April 7 to decide whether to charge the Illinois governor. The committee's report says it found the government's allegations against Blagojevich "shocking" and believes the information in the federal complaint "is sufficiently credible to demonstrate an abuse of office" that was "inconsistent with the governor's constitutional oath." If the full House votes to impeach the governor, the action moves to the state Senate, which would try the case and decide whether to remove him from office. The Illinois committee's report points out that Blagojevich does not need to be found guilty of a crime for the House to impeach him. "An impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding and its purpose is not punitive. Rather, impeachment is a remedial proceeding to protect the public from an officer who has abused his position of trust," the report says. The committee points out that the criminal complaint against Blagojevich alleges he was secretly taped saying he would not appoint anyone to Obama's seat without some form of compensation. iReport.com: Do you trust your political leaders? "The governor repeatedly demonstrated that his decision to appoint a senator would not be based on merits of the candidate or on public policy, but rather on how that appointment could benefit him personally," the report says. "The governor directed various individuals to conduct inquiries on his behalf to negotiate deals for the Senate appointment, affirmatively setting into action a plot to trade the Senate appointment for something of value to the governor," it said. Blagojevich declined the committee's offer to testify on his own behalf, the report says. Why should Americans care?

Answer: it helps takes away what very little trust most Americans had in those in power.

Question: Why should Americans Care about the Rod Blagojevich Scandal/Impeachment? CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- An Illinois legislative committee Thursday unanimously recommended impeaching embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich amid corruption allegations. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich may face federal corruption charges. Blagojevich was arrested last month after federal prosecutors alleged, among other things, that he tried to sell the Senate seat President-elect Barack Obama vacated. The issue will now be taken up by the full Illinois state House of Representatives. "Today is the day that we begin to give back democracy to the people of the state of Illinois," Democratic Rep. Jack Franks said as he cast his "aye" vote. Blagojevich "has been AWOL and derelict of his duties. He has abused his powers, and he has brought shame to this great state," Franks said. "I believe that Rod Blagojevich is a liar, and I believe he is a thief," Franks said. "He has stolen the trust of the people." The committee heard testimony Thursday afternoon from Roland Burris, the man Blagojevich appointed to succeed President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. Burris denied any quid pro quo with Blagojevich for his appointment to the U.S. Senate. Burris, former attorney general for Illinois, is not accused of engaging in "pay-to-play" politics with Blagojevich. Blagojevich denies any wrongdoing and has rejected calls for his resignation. Don't Miss Burris denies quid pro quo for Senate appointment Illinois GOP wants closer look at Burris, Blagojevich ties Democrat: Blagojevich 'called our bluff' "I would have appreciated it if he had stepped aside, and we would not have been made the laughing stock of the country," said Rep. Mary Flowers, another Democrat. She noted, however, that the governor is "innocent until proven guilty." The 21-member committee looked into Blagojevich's actions on a number of issues beyond the federal allegations, including an allegation he withheld state money from a children's hospital until he received a $50,000 campaign donation. Rep. Chapin Rose, a Republican, called the alleged behavior "repugnant." "The report speaks for itself and contains many, many, many acts that I find, and most of my colleagues find, to be impeachable," Rose said. "The evidence is overwhelmingly damning, and with that I vote aye," he said. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald initiated a criminal complaint against Blagojevich after listening to wiretaps of the governor's phone conversations. Blagojevich was arrested December 9, but has not been indicted. A federal judge in Chicago told Fitzgerald he has until April 7 to decide whether to charge the Illinois governor. The committee's report says it found the government's allegations against Blagojevich "shocking" and believes the information in the federal complaint "is sufficiently credible to demonstrate an abuse of office" that was "inconsistent with the governor's constitutional oath." If the full House votes to impeach the governor, the action moves to the state Senate, which would try the case and decide whether to remove him from office. The Illinois committee's report points out that Blagojevich does not need to be found guilty of a crime for the House to impeach him. "An impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding and its purpose is not punitive. Rather, impeachment is a remedial proceeding to protect the public from an officer who has abused his position of trust," the report says. The committee points out that the criminal complaint against Blagojevich alleges he was secretly taped saying he would not appoint anyone to Obama's seat without some form of compensation. iReport.com: Do you trust your political leaders? "The governor repeatedly demonstrated that his decision to appoint a senator would not be based on merits of the candidate or on public policy, but rather on how that appointment could benefit him personally," the report says. "The governor directed various individuals to conduct inquiries on his behalf to negotiate deals for the Senate appointment, affirmatively setting into action a plot to trade the Senate appointment for something of value to the governor," it said. Blagojevich declined the committee's offer to testify on his own behalf, the report says. Why should we care? What does it say about politicians in America? How does it affect the moral of our country?

Answer: He has been proven to be a criminal and personally i am not fond of any criminals being in elected office. so we have a long ways to go before the people can even start to remotely trust the government.

Question: 13 yrs ago Clinton was impeached because he masturbated, & 2 yrs prior O'Donnell spoke against masturbation so? It was 13 years ago, December 19th, 1998, that President Clinton was impeached because he masturbated and left a stain on a blue dress. That semen-stained Presidential DNA'ed blue dress was the unimpeachable evidence of his unfitness for office. As months of sworn testimony before grand juries and congressional hearings recorded -- Clinton had an out-of-control sexual appetite and masturbated in various locations of the White House, with or without a sexual partner. It was *exactly* 2 yrs prior on December 20th, 1996 that Christine O'Donnell appeared as a SALT representative on MTV's show Sex In The 90's, where she advocated for "sexual purity" when dealing with our "God given sexual desires". Christine had founded the Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT) earlier in 1996 and served as its president. The MTV show episode was entitled "The Safest Sex of all" Would Clinton have avoided impeachment if he had only seen O'Donnell's speech, and had heeded her sage advice? So, who was right? Until Drudge broke the story of the blue dress, there was insufficient public uproar and disquiet to have carried through an impeachment. As Hilary, correctly, wrote about a Presidential impeachment -- it's all political. Impeachment is a political process, and the High Crimes and Misdemeanors are interpreted POLITICALLY. Thus it was Clinton's sexual dalliances with himself and other willing and unwilling partners in and about his offices that provided a big enough package of political meat that the House could bite into. And with Monica, as the official records record, there were various forms of sex but "wanking" predominated.

Answer: Clinton had Arkansas state troopers round up the girls for him much earlier while he was governor so I doubt the MTV abstinence program would have helped Bubba. He was already off the deep end. There is nothing wrong with the message O'Donnell was carrying, either then or now.

Question: Do you think the Bush Administration committed any acts that could be Treasonous? Yes or no, and why? Is anyone else as frustrated as I am? There used to be a time that you could ask a government related question, and you would give a better response than I hate Dems or Reps. Some mentioned Clinton, that impeachment was not for a treasonous act. "For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached." His issue fell under the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Lately people are beginning to throw the word Treason around that is very serious accusation, and if so, you'd better be able to back it up. Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution states " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." All definitions used can be found on www.wikipedia.org.

Answer: A Gestapo Administration Caught in gratuitous and illegal spying on American citizens, the Bush administration has defended its illegal activity and set the Justice (sic) Department on the trail of the person or persons who informed the New York Times of Bush’s violation of law. Note the astounding paradox: The Bush administration is caught red-handed in blatant illegality and responds by trying to arrest the patriot who exposed the administration’s illegal behavior. Bush has actually declared it treasonous to reveal his illegal behavior! His propagandists, who masquerade as news organizations, have taken up the line: To reveal wrong-doing by the Bush administration is to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration’s lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler’s claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law. Bush’s acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court. Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12/28/05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant. Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals? There are two possible reasons. One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power. The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities. What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail? These possible reasons for bypassing the law and the court need to be fully investigated and debated. No administration in my lifetime has given so many strong reasons to oppose and condemn it as has the Bush administration. Nixon was driven from office because of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself. Clinton was impeached because he did not want the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging that he engaged in adulterous sex acts in the Oval Office. In contrast, Bush has deceived the public and Congress in order to invade Iraq, illegally detained Americans, illegally tortured detainees, and illegally spied on Americans. Bush has upheld neither the Constitution nor the law of the land. A majority of Americans disapprove of what Bush has done; yet, the Democratic Party remains a muted spectator. Why is the Justice (sic) Department investigating the leak of Bush’s illegal activity instead of the illegal activity committed by Bush? Is the purpose to stonewall Congress’ investigation of Bush’s illegal spying? By announcing a Justice (sic) Department investigation, the Bush administration positions itself to decline to respond to Congress on the grounds that it would compromise its own investigation into national security matters. What will the federal courts do? When Hitler challenged the German judicial system, it collapsed and accepted that Hitler was the law. Hitler’s claims were based on nothing but his claims, just as the claim for extra-legal power for Bush is based on nothing but memos written by his political appointees. The Bush administration, backed by the neoconservative Federalist Society, has brought the separation of powers, the foundation of our political system, to crisis. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers, favors more "energy in the executive." Distrustful of Congress and the American people, the Federalist Society never fails to support rulings that concentrate power in the executive branch of government. It is a paradox that conservative foundations and individuals have poured money for 23 years into an organization that is inimical to the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system. September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler’s hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush’s claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?

Question: Is it possible to build a legitimate and respected, inclusive, grassroots movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney? I mean this as a serious question, I don't say impeachment lightly. I believe, as many other Americans do as well, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of criminal acts. As this is not meant to be a rant, I only name a few. The illegal rounding up of thousands of law abiding Americans after September 11th. Illegal wire taps placed on Americans in violation of the fourth amendment. Violation of Jose Padilla's sixth amendment rights. So called 'illegal combatants' held in violation of the Geneva Conventions. There are many more. I have, again, not lightly, come to the conclusion that their crimes require full testimony to the American people. My question is this: Is it possible to build a respected movement, one that is main stream (think TODAY show) and made up of Americans on both side of the political spectrum, whose goal is to get both the House and Senate to impeach Bush and Cheney for these and other crimes? Why or why not? Please, no rants. This is meant as a serious question. Thanks. Wow...Many, if not most, Americans that were rounded up after 9/11 were leagl residents who had committed no crime. The Patriot Act, which was printed at 3:45 AM by the Bush admin the day before the vote. It's over 300 pages long. The senate had broad, bi partisian support for a similar bill that they had worked very hard on in committee. That bill was replaced with the so called Patriot Act on the eve of it's vote. It is full of Unconstitutional acts and many many communites all over the country have passed ordinaces stating that local law enforcement may not engage in enforcing those parts of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional. It's shocking to me that so many, both liberal and conservative, are willing to give up their civil liberties. To give up the heart of what this nation stands for. The loss of civil rights is both unprecedented and illegal.

Answer: Actually, only one provision of the Patriot Act was found unconstitutional -- and that was already kicked out in 2004. The other bits may be intrusive and obnoxious, but they are not unconstitutional. As to impeachment, a grass roots amendment won't work. Only the House has constitutional authority to initiate impeachment proceedings. And there weren't thousands of Americans rounded up. Only four US citizens have have been illegally detained in violation of 6th Amendment rights. I say "only" four in the same way I'd say "only" 3600 US soldiers have died in Iraq -- not to make light of the number, but just as a comparison to other numbers. Yes, Bush has willfully violated numerous federal laws, as even he and his lawyers admit. 18 USC 2501 (federal war crimes), 18 USC 2441 (illegal wiretapping), 18 USC 1001 (obstruction of congress), 2 USC 192 (contempt of congress) -- those are confirmed violations that no objective person can argue with. The fact that some people flatly deny Bush has broken any laws -- despite his own admission and despite Supreme Court rulings confirming it -- just shows their level of delusion and denial. And even if Bush claims some legal right to violate that law, that's an affirmative defense that would have to be raised at trial -- like any other affirmative defense, it doesn't mean he didn't commit the crimes, just that (if proven) he might have been legally entitled to do so. But until there's a trial, the affirmative defense means nothing as a matter of law. All that having been said, a grassroots drive will not itself do anything. Even a Bill of Impeachment filed in the House won't do anything. Because there is no way in this political climate that 2/3 of the Senate will vote to convict. It doesn't matter how clear the law is on the issue -- the vote will be political, not legal.

Impeach Impeachment Of Testimony

Impeach Impeachment Of Testimony Related Products and News