Politics News

nicklemeout asked:


I would really like this question answered by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

If there is evidence to point towards suspcion of a crime that has been committed, then that warrants an investigation. If the investigation does indeed find viable proof and a perpatrator, then that warrants prosecution of the perps. Regarding the large amount of evidence/suspicion/proof of the Bush administrations illegal dealings, should the next President investigate the current President?

Which is more important to you, the presidential candidates, restore the high honor of the American people and the laws of our nation and Constitution or is it more important to give the Bush administration the continued blanket of protection that they have so warmly gotten used to? Would you use the full power of the Executive Branch to investigate and prosecute the Bush administration?

rainfingers asked:


I know, impeachment is based on “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not approval ratings. But Bush has made plenty of impeachable offenses, including the illegal NSA wiretap program which he flatly admitted. And yet the House of Representatives won’t impeach. What depth of approval rating, or public uproar, do you think it would take?
Some of you are still claiming that Bush has committed no impeachable offenses. However, Bush personally authorized the NSA to conduct wiretaps without warrants, which is plainly illegal. He admitted (bragged?) in public that he did so. There are more offenses; this one is simply the most clear-cut.
OK, I see I need to explain this more. Courts have ruled that the 4th amendment (prohibiting search and seizure without a warrant) applies to wiretaps. Therefore, wiretaps without a warrant are illegal. Know your rights, people!