gnomic says:

I think a independant prosecutor would have been a better first move. How can you impeach this administration without first doing the investigation to mount a successful impeachment. While I agree that impeachment and imprisonment is appropriate, we need to adhere to the rule of law that this administration has ignored.

greyrat says:

Big Frakin’ Whoop. This means nothing. I mean, Bush didn’t get a hummer in the Oval Office so what is there to impeach him for?

Jason says:

A. I hope the second commenter was being facetious.
B. Congress doesn’t need a special prosecutor to impeach the President. That power is given to them by the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, last sentence — you might want to read it some time gnomic), but they do lack the courage to do so.

I think we should vote all of them out! None of the f**kers are representing the will of the people in their states.

gnomic says:

My point was that a special prosecutor can pursue and present facts not yet in evidence.

I have read the Constitution several times in fact. You might want to ask a question before jumping to a conclusion sometime Jason.

And greyrat was being sarcastic, not facetious.

Andrew says:

Grayrat may have been being ironic. Or maybe that’s you.

greyrat says:

Nota bene: Irony is my middle name. And Sarcasm is my confirmation name.