Motion for House Vote on Impeachment Passes!!! Debate on Cheney Impeachment Averted

Debate on Cheney Impeachment Averted

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Right in the middle of a vote to kill the bill the GOP decided to change their votes!! Pride proceeds the fall?? This is great! Could the republican strategy backfire!!

They seem very confident but perhaps they are underestimating the situation??

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I am puzzeled by this move.

Kucinich forces a vote on impeachment of Cheney.

Hoyer motions to table or kill the motion

Republicans begin voting to table then halfway through the vote the Republicans change their vote en masse not to table or kill the motion

Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-194.

What could this mean!! I knew that Kucinich was going to put this motion out surely the republicans knew...why the dramatic vote change mid stream. I mean did they really shift their stategy on the fly.

If yes then this could be a huge mistake. Or the conspiracy angle would be that the powers at be will offer Cheney as a sacrifice to further the agenda???

I have been trying to follow this, but now i am a bit confused. The GOP changed their vote to go ahead with the hearings? The democrats then voted to forward it to the judiciary commitee? What just happened there? Why didn't the republicans just table the resolution?

This is what I'm talking about! Awesome move, they're sick of the draft-dodging, oil-hungry killer too. There's numerous scandals to go along w/ this garbage and he's dead soon anyday from a heart attack, he's been through two of them and has a patchwork of problems, lives on the bottle, pills, Illuminati sex slaves -- shooting lawyers. He's trash, see you Dick.

www.abovepolitics.com...

Anyone got any links on a death pool? He's in there for next year, 2009, the latest.

Pelosi is a piece of trash traitor as well, she's quoted w/ "off the table" yet read the faux news article, its got a chance to make it to Senate and 2/3s -- he's gone.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by anhinga]

What?

No Comprendo!

Could someone please type it in plain English so the special people here can understand?

What a tangled web. :shk:

Are you saying that the Dems wanted this move for impeachment and Reps didnt, but when it came time to vote, the Reps switched sides and so did the dems, therefore not (really) wanting to move to impeach???

Hmmm, perhaps he doesnt want to reign as VP anymore?
I mean, he'd most likely go back to Halliburton previouis to his other appointments.
Theyve been setup in iraq with unlimited business, and atleast a corporation doesnt have to answer to the people.

from my understanding, basically the republicans switched their vote so the dems would have to speak on it and kinda put their foot in their mouths. The dems were counting on the repubs to kill the bill and that way they would look like they are trying to make a stand but the repubs won't let them. When the repubs figured out what the dems were trying to do they decided to switch their vote to make the dems follow thru with it. The dems got scared that they would actually have to justify this so they changed their vote and killed the bill themselves.

disclaimer: i am not a republican nor a dem.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by stellawayten]

Defusing any chance of an actual impeachment debate today, the House then voted 218-194 to send the motion to Conyers's committee, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting the move.

Kucinich, who had 22 co-sponsors for his articles of impeachment measure, predominantly members of the left leaning Out of Iraq Caucus, has been angry that Democratic leaders would not allow impeachment to be considered. He took to the floor today to offer his impeachment articles as a privileged resolution, which under the chamber rules can be offered by any member and must be considered within two days of its offering.

blog.washingtonpost.com...

Seems like it's still sort of on the table.... come on Congress, get a spine, anyone else notice the war budget for 2008 is not in the military bill that just passed? That is something in the right direction, limiting the money on that killing spree for once; this could and should be the best move they've made since these things took office.

From what I understand, sending it to the judiciary commitee is just as good as killing the motion. They can sit on it as long as they want. Republicans are betting on the fact it will just die there. So they actually made a brave move. Went ahead and said sure lets do it, counting on the fact the dems were in no way prepared for that action. Now it looks like the dems are the ones who killed the motion instead of them. Bold move. Too bad I was hoping to see Dick booted.

Originally posted by stellawayten
from my understanding, basically the republicans switched their vote so the dems would have to speak on it and kinda put their foot in their mouths. The dems were counting on the repubs to kill the bill and that way they would look like they are trying to make a stand but the repubs won't let them. When the repubs figured out what the dems were trying to do they decided to switch their vote to make the dems follow thru with it. The dems got scared that they would actually have to justify this so they changed their vote and killed the bill themselves.

disclaimer: i am not a republican nor a dem.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by stellawayten]

The motion was not killed it was referred to the House Judiciary committee for study!

This motion now has a chance to come to a floor vote. All that would be needed is a simple majority in the House. The Senate would require 2/3's vote.

The GOP could have stopped the motion but halfway through the vote they switched sides???

Did you notice this has not been picked up by the MSM????

reply to post by stellawayten


That's what I was thinking too.

The Republicans strategically shifted their vote from 'against' to 'for' because it would force the Democratic party into a politically embarrassing debate (but a desperately essential one nonetheless!).

It was Kucinich (a Democrat) who wanted the debate to go ahead, not the Democratic Party. When the Democrats tried to make political hay from Kucinich's tactics the Republicans pissed on their chips big time. When the Republicans started to vote for the debate to be held the Democrats blinked and scrapped the debate themselves. This is essentially what both the Republican and Democratic Parties wanted; the death of the impeachment debate.

However, the Republicans made the political hay, rather than the Democrats, because the Republicans now look like they have nothing to hide. In comparison, the Democrats, on the other hand, look like they cant control their own members and that they are protecting Cheney from impeachment, not because they think he isn't impeachable (they do, we all do) but that they are placing the health of the US government below their chances of election come 2008.

Republicans 1 Democrats 0

[edit on 6/11/07 by subz]

I think the Republicans realized that a lot of valuable time would be wasted on this baseless and outrageous attack on the Vice President.

The Vice President hasn't broken the law.

The Republicans did this to the Democrats before.

I can't remember what the issue was. Maybe it was the draft.

Anyone?

This is going to put tremendous pressure on John Conyers chairman of the judiciary committee!!

He is supposedly a great opponent of the Bush gang and history has now presented him with a pretty clear choice.

If the American public gets word that there is an actual chance to remove Cheney from office it could get interesting!!

reply to post by Leo Strauss


i actually saw it on fox news today. That is where I got the info that the bill was killed.

The changing of the vote midstream is odd. Basically whoever owns the republican congress put a call in and ordered them to switch votes, in nothing else it shows who owns Congress. This may be a signal being sent to NeoCons in White house, maybe they are defying some orders from the elite.

They might want to use there media control to paint the impeachment trials as political maneuvers by democrats, they may also be selling the NeoCons down the river to make sure Hillary gets ushered in as new monarch. If Hillary's real persona is allowed to continue to leak over to mainstream media, they may want to gimp the republicans going into 2008 to make sure she still wins.

Lots of questions here, the one thing I think they would not want is a public media coverage of the reasons for impeachment that are not shown on mainstream media.

Above all remember Clinton and Bush/Cheney play for different factions of the same team.

The Republican/Democrat division in congress is an illusion. They first are a corporate party.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The Vice President hasn't broken the law.

Search for Impeach on Internet, first of all breaking the law is not a requirement, it is an offence that is below the standard of the office as agreed by congress.

Although things like outing a covert CIA agent is specifically illegal.

Article 10 in Andrew Jackson's impeachment was effectively for having a potty mouth in front of congress.

Second The impeachment is saying there is enough agreement to go forward for looking for the evidence.

The reason for Republican support for this measure is to make Democrats look bad by being so obsessive with taking on a Vice President instead of being obsessive with domestic policies that affects Americans greatly, that the American people would like say give a break man, the Bush Administration is leaving office and you want to talk about them???

Thats why many Democrats wanted especially Pelosi wanted impeachment off the table, it distracts the message that the Democrats are sending about caring for the American people by talking about important issues, instead of taking on a Vice President.

Originally posted by Redge777
Although things like outing a covert CIA agent is specifically illegal.

Theres no hard evidence of such action, unless you take Wilson's word for it.

Article 10 in Andrew Jackson's impeachment was effectively for having a potty mouth in front of congress.

Never heard of anything related to supposedly Andrew Jackson's impeachment. I don't think there was ever an attempt to impeach Andrew Jackson.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by stellawayten
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

i actually saw it on fox news today. That is where I got the info that the bill was killed.

It was not a bill it was a "priviledged resolution" to force a vote on impeachment in the house.

The dem leadership immediatly motioned to table the resolution.

The repugs changed their vote midstream to allow the resolution to reach the floor for debate.

The dem leadership then quickly motioned to send the resolution to committee for discussion.

Now the committee could recommend a floor vote... or gum it to death.
So it is still alive.

The thing that interests me is the mid stream change by the GOP. Was it confusion??? It might be a message of some sort. If it was a strategy to embarass the dems why the mid stream vote change?? Seems a risky strategy when all you need to do is kill it immediately? After all no one would have even paid attention if the motion was tabled.

To my knowledge the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment proceedings but is blocked by the dem leadership.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Leo Strauss]