 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:14 AM We have time to dismantle the Constitution; we have time to invade foreign nations; we have time to support all manner of destructive schemes to harm citizen, distort education, hide money, and kill humans, But taking the linchpins of incompetence out of the machine...We don't have time for this crap? You sound like Southwest Airlines in bed with the FAA, pal. "No time for safety -- too busy flying airplanes...". Wake up, Ter. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 05 Apr 08 - 03:36 AM That's March gone Amos, let's see I,ve only got eight more of these posts to go. During the coming months those in politics in the US are going to be far too busy getting themselves elected or re-elected and as "Impeachment" is a political process, who has actually got time for this crap? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:29 PM "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office." -- article of impeachment filed against President Nixon. There is no shortage of potential charges against the current occupant of the White House. Yet he remains, safe and oblivious. To make the "checks and balances" provided by the Constitution a credible possibility, shouldn't members of the House of Representatives actually perform the duties they swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office? The Bush administration has made it easy, already admitting to electronic eavesdropping on Americans without the required court warrants. The precedent was one of the articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon. The president's illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. President Bush also is accused of engaging in a systematic pattern of making false statements to the American people and their representatives in Congress concerning the potential threat of Iraq-based weapons of mass destruction. And, his administration violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law by seizing military powers reserved to the U.S. Congress, initiating the invasion of Iraq prior to the required debate by the people through their representatives in Congress to produce the necessary official declaration of war. And, without a congressional declaration of war, the president and his administration have authorized the denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, thus violating U.S. and international law. Our Constitution provides for impeachment. Impeachment is an indictment. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5.) Then the Senate tries an impeached official with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict. (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.) Furthermore, the power to pardon cannot trump the impeachment powers of Congress: "The President shall ... have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1) So, while it isn't easy to remove a president, if the Congress doesn't exercise its responsibilities, abuses can and do happen. Republicans believe in law and order and a limited constitutional government. Democrats are known for their support for civil rights. The Wisconsin Democratic, Green and Libertarian parties all have called for the impeachment of Bush. All congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Dave Obey, where are you? Let the hearings begin, chips falling where they may. Let justice be done. Jim Maas of Rothschild is a member of the executive committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM "New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall, age 87, Brookline, NH, is fighting to save the nation from the Bush-Cheney cabal and return us to constitutional democracy, with her bill, HR 24, to the NH State House, to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If passed on 4-16-08, when it is scheduled for vote before the entire NH House, the bill will go under state seal, without need of governor signature, to the US House for review, demanding in the name of New Hampshire's people that Congress begin impeachment hearings immediately for Bush-Cheney high crimes against the Constitution, the American people, and humanity. I am writing to you because I know that you are patriots. Betty Hall is fighting for us, and more importantly, for our children, and theirs. Betty needs our help. Accordingly, on Monday, 4-14-08, the New England impeachment community has organized an HR 24 lobbying and rally forum, featuring: Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War Era Icon, Who Saved Countless US, Vietnamese and Other Lives By Releasing the Pentagon Papers Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General Under President Lyndon Johnson Dr. Robert Bowman, Former Director of the "Star Wars" Space Weapon Program, Now Its Most Ardent Critic Other Renowned Public Fugures Committed to our Constitution and Peace in Our World When: Monday, April 14, 2008, 3 PM to 11 PM Where: Capital Center for the Arts, 44 S, Main Street, Concord, NH Purpose: To lobby uncommitted NH lawmakers to vote for HR 24, and to rally North East supporters of impeachment" (From Global Research.net) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM From Op-Ed NEws: For those following the drama of New Hampshire residents using "Jefferson's Manual" to force the Congress to take up the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, here's the dirty little secret: it's really easy. All you need to do is print out a version of the below resolution, walk it to an amenable state representative (or assemblyman/woman), and have them enter it into State House business. Now you have an active impeachment resolution in your state. Is it effective? From a legal standpoint, no one knows, since no presidential impeachment has ever been commenced through Jefferson's Manual, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature. But from a political standpoint, 50 states having impeachment resolutions in the works would make Congress's I-See-Nothing position untenable. So far California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas (YES TEXAS!), Washington, and Wisconsin have active impeachment resolutions. Growing that number exponentially in a short time would be one way to jump-start the growing movement, using the tool the Founders gave us when they envisioned a confederation of states with powers which balanced those of the central government. Section 603 was included by the Founders as an additional check on the Executive Branch which emanates from the states, rather than from the Congress. It seemed to foresee the situation today, when even Congress, the branch of government which is supposed to be closest to the people, becomes aloof and imperial. Polls show 45 percent of Americans are in favor of impeaching George Bush, a solid 55 percent in the case of Dick Cheney, and these are from early 2007. Bush has not gotten any more popular since. With these kinds of numbers, even if it were unclear exactly where among the silverware impeachment belongs, it is certainly somewhere on the table. Taking it off the table gives a green light for the administration to keep doing more of what it has been doing, like a recalcitrant child being told no matter how badly he behaves, there will always be ice cream for dessert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM Frustrated Anti-War Leader Pleads for Congress to Impeach By Josiah Ryan CNSNews.com Staff Writer March 21, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - One of the organizers of this week's anti-war protests in Washington, D.C., is pleading with House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) to make good on his repeated threats to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. David Swanson, who runs After Downing Street, a coalition that includes hundreds of prominent liberal activist groups, including Veterans Against the Iraq War and Code Pink, prompted cheers on Tuesday when he called for Bush's impeachment at a rally in front of the White House. About 70 people attended the rally. Swanson told Cybercast News Service he has grown frustrated with Conyers' posturing about impeachment. "He doesn't mean it," said Swanson. "He isn't really working on it with anyone in the House. It's just an applause line." Nonetheless, Swanson is not giving up on urging Conyers and the Democratic leadership to take action on impeaching President Bush before the end of the year. "This is up to you, Congressman Conyers, this is your chairmanship," said Swanson. "We won it for you. We voted for lousy Democrats all across the country so you could have the chairmanship and act on your promises and impeach these criminals." "Congressman John Conyers has an outstanding record," said Swanson. "But now he is treating our Constitution as a joke and treating us as idiots. This is offensive to all of us. "Congressman Conyers, do not throw it away," said Swanson. "Don't make your legacy be the destruction of the Constitution, and do not blame it on Sen. Barack Obama." Swanson was referring to Conyers's comment to Cybercast News Service on Tuesday that he would like to impeach President Bush but was afraid the action would prevent Obama (D-Ill.) from being elected president. (See story) Conyers said he was afraid Republicans would use an impeachment attempt to hammer Democrats in the campaign -- "and that we end up getting McCain (as president)," Conyers said. "I would regret that for the rest of my life. That's the only reason. That would be my fear." Conyers admitted, however, that he was "struggling" with a decision on whether to try impeaching Bush before the election. The Judiciary Committee, which Conyers chairs, would ordinarily conduct an impeachment inquiry, if there is one, and approve any Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the full House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM From CNSNEws.com: Judiciary Chair Pledges Legal Action Against Bush After Nov 4 (CNSNews.com) - At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) guaranteed his liberal audience that he will pursue legal action against President Bush after the November elections. Conyers was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush. "Yes, you have my word on that," Conyers replied. He then shook the questioner's hand as a sign of his commitment. Conyers, who chairs the house Judiciary Committee, told an audience at the liberal Take Back America Conference that he is wrestling with the idea of beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but he believes that such an effort at this time might hamper Sen. Barack Obama's chance of winning the presidency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 08 - 10:04 AM he first time Rep. Betty Hall had the opportunity to vote in support of a presidential impeachment, she declined. It was 1973 and Hall, only two years into what would become a lengthy legislative career, found herself surrounded by New Hampshire lawmakers debating a resolution urging the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon. Opposition was overwhelming: The proposal garnered 11 votes, Hall said. Thirty-five years after refusing to support the Nixon resolution, Hall, a Brookline Democrat who celebrated her 87th birthday yesterday, is leading the charge for a different impeachment proposal. In a resolution urging Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - which is scheduled for a House vote this week - Hall outlines her case, arguing that Bush and Cheney violated international treaties "by invading Iraq without just cause or provocation" and that they misled Congress to gain authorization for the war. The resolution, Hall said earlier this week, is "probably the most serious effort I've been engaged in in my long period of service." In addition to condemning Bush and Cheney's behavior in the run-up to the war, the resolution cites the detentions of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; warrantless wiretapping; and the "pattern and practice of threatening litigation" against those who refuse to install voting machines "that require votes to be counted in trade secrecy." "We don't know the truth," Hall said. "Impeachment is about finding the truth." Just as the Nixon resolution inspired detractors, Hall's proposal has outspoken opponents. "I have never seen a document more vitriolic and more inflammatory," Rep. David Hess, a Hooksett Republican, testified at a public hearing last month. The resolution won minimal support from the legislative committee charged with studying it: A majority of that committee recommended the full House reject the proposal. But Hall, colleagues and relatives say, has never been one to wither in the face of opposition. "Betty Hall is the right one to do it because when Betty Hall gets something in her head and wants to do it, she doesn't back down because maybe it's unpopular," said Rep. Liz Hager, a Concord Republican. "She is certainly tenacious." In Brookline, where Hall has lived for decades, her support for the resolution likely isn't turning many heads, said Peter Webb, the town moderator and Hall's longtime neighbor. "Betty's always been a freethinker and one who stood up for her principles," he said. "She's an extraordinary mix of determination, independence, intelligence and grace," said Webb, who recalled Hall welcoming his family to Brookline nearly three decades ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM "I mean, seriously? Watching him do his little tap dance on the White House steps while waiting for Senator McCain last week, watching the tape of his cowboy song and dance routine at the Gridiron Club event ("Here comes Scooter/Finally free of the prosecutor..."), then hearing -- and reading about -- his breezily irrelevant speech on the teetering American economy, it did occur to me that the poor man, once merely out of his depth, had in fact slipped from simple denial of reality into the realm of certifiable disconnection from the world the rest of us inhabit. I wonder if we out here in the public realm would necessarily recognize it, if it had happened. Is the president so protected by our common need to believe in the sanity of our leaders that we might refuse to recognize a dreadful truth? Are those around him conspiring to hide the truth from us? And how would we know? I recall that wonderful book, Being There -- and the wonderful Hal Ashby/Peter Sellers movie of the same name that was based on that Jerzy Kosinski novel--in which a simple-minded gardener ascended to the presidency. But we're dealing now with something more than a simple mind. It's a dangerously deluded one -- one that reports with no apparent sense of irony on instructions received from God. Don't we put people like that away, for their own protection as well as ours? And let's remember -- hard though that may be, these days -- that we're engaged in something other than a novel or a movie. We're in it, while our "president" is showing signs of something a lot worse than common job-related stress. Have we reached the time for rational minds to take control? Should we demand to have Bush's behaviors evaluated by professionals? Should the leaders of Congress act to take the reins of government before the country plunges into chaos? How is it possible that it has come this far? How is it possible that this president has escaped impeachment? As one of the readers of my blog, The Buddha Diaries, noted: "The masses were swift to support the impeachment of Clinton for a little lie about some nookie, but Bush gets a free pass to kill countless innocent people in a war that was conducted based on lies and deception with an impeachment nowhere in sight." (Huffington Post 3-18) I know we have only a few more months to survive this nightmare, but are things not getting worse from day to day, from hour to hour? Or is it just my imagination playing tricks with me? I mean, seriously..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, reflecting on the quick exit of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, wonders aloud in a new essay how President George W. Bush has escaped the same fate despite Bush's role in considerably more damning and damaging crimes. In the piece entitled "Country of Laws," Nader blasts Bush for fictionalizing his Iraq war actions and for saying that he'll leave office with no regrets. While Spitzer resigned within days of his admission to indiscretions, "Bush remains," writes Nader, "disgracing his office for longtime repeated violations of the Constitution, federal laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory." Nader contrasts Spitzer's legal and personal transgressions, and the price the now ex-governor is rapidly paying for them, with Bush, who "violated federal laws against torture, against spying on Americans without judicial approval, against due process of law and habeas corpus in arresting Americans without charges, imprisoning them and limited their access to attorneys." He adds that Bush has "committed a massive war of aggression, under false pretenses, violating again and again treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, federal statutes and the Constitution." Despite this, and the human, financial and infrastructural cost of the war, Bush is, as Nader writes, "effectively immune from federal criminal and civil laws because no American has standing to sue him and the Attorney General, who does, is his handpicked cabinet member. "Moreover," continues Nader, "the courts have consistently refused to take cases involving the conduct of foreign and military policy by the president and the Vice President regardless of the seriousness of the violation." Nader says that judges readily and repeatedly dismiss such cases as "political" and say Congress is the way to pursue grievances, specifically via its authority to impeach. Yet only Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has publicly called for impeachment, Nader notes. (Nader curiously fails to acknowledge that in December 2006, now-former Rep. Cynthia McKinney--a rival 2008 White House candidate running on the Green Party ticket--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as one of her final legislative acts before leaving Congress.) Meanwhile, rues Nader, "the American people have no authority to challenge [Bush's] governmental crimes, which are committed in their name, and are rendered defenseless except for elections, which the two Party duopoly has rigged, commercialized, and trivialized. Even in this electoral arena, a collective vote of ouster of the incumbents does not bring public officials to justice, just to another position usually in the high paying corporate world." Nader says that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will leave office as "fugitives from justice without any sheriffs, prosecutors or courts willing to uphold the rule of law." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM Bush skates free Bill Clinton has a tête-à-tête with an assistant and Congress spends a zillion bucks to impeach him. The governor of New Jersey comes out of the closet, and he is rushed to retirement. Now the governor of New York is caught with his pants down, and he is forced to resign. However, George W. Bush lies to us, illegally invades a sovereign nation and, in effect, causes the murder of 4,000 American sons and daughters and heaven only knows how many civilians. In addition, our economy, education and health care is going down the tube because he is blowing 12 billion bucks a month on the Iraq fiasco, and no one utters a word about impeachment, indictment and trial. Excuse me? Bruce Graydon, Fort Collins |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM "In considering how to raise the dynamic for a House Judiciary Congressional Investigation of Bush and Cheney it seems one element missing is changing the discussion about impeachment from one about "political fallout" to a discussion of "accountability" in government. Since many Republicans currently in the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice, presumably justified by the need for accountability in the Executive Branch, these same individuals should be able to explain why they have ignored the far more egregious violations of the Bush Administration and fail to support at least an impeachment investigation. Alternatively, if the only interest of these members of Congress in 1998 was the use of impeachment for "political advantage" perhaps it is time they go on record as stating why they felt impeachment was acceptable for Bill Clinton just 9.25 years earlier but is not acceptable now with respect to holding George Bush and Dick Cheney "accountable". It may not change anything but the fall election by doing this. However, having each person on record as stating they don't believe Bush or Cheney has done anything worthy of an impeachment hearing even though they felt impeachment was justified and voted for it when Bill Clinton was in office in 1998 may be a worthwhile objective to clarify this hypocrisy. Voters can decide for themselves whose interests these Representatives truly serve later this year. Not a single person on this list who felt Bill Clinton had violated his oath of office and was guilty of impeachable offenses has been so moved to support even an impeachment investigation of President George W. Bush or Vice President Richard Cheney for any offense while they have been in office. Not a single person on this list has requested that George W. Bush be investigated by the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) even though several are HJC members (***). If possible, each and every person on this list should be asked the following 4 questions: 1. What do you believe is the purpose of impeachment? 2. Why do you believe we have an impeachment process as part of our US constitution? 3. Why did you support the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton in December 1998? 4. Why do you feel none of the following charges made against the present administration of George W. Bush and Cheney is worthy of even an impeachment hearing? a. Misleading Congress about the need for a war with Iraq. b. Obstruction of justice by telling Federal Employees not to testify before Congress and/or not to respond to Congressional subpoenas. c. Misuse of the Department of Justice for political purposes instead of law enforcement. d. Approval of torture for captured prisoners by the US in violation of ratified US treaties. e. Not providing the due process guaranteed to a US citizen by our Constitution by placing him in Guantanamo Bay Prison camp without access to a lawyer for an extended time period. f. Attempt to bribe a US citizen who was raped and illegally imprisoned with US tax dollars to keep her silent and get her to drop her suit against Halliburton and the State Department. g. Approval of the spying on US citizens by the NSA without a warrant. h. No-bid extended contracts and failure of government agencies to enforce rules and regulations on the businesses they regulate leading to the loss of billions of tax payer dollars from the US treasury. i. Destruction of government records to circumvent accountability by Congressional oversight. ...(OpEd News) Just keeping the point on the radar. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:03 PM Democrats and a lawless Bush An editorial — 3/11/2008 5:48 am (Capital TImes) In response to President Bush's veto of legislation banning so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a Washington phrase for what the rest of us know as torture -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold was appropriately disappointed. "With bipartisan support, Congress voted to prohibit so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' The CIA's interrogation program, which has included torture, represents the opposite of what we are fighting for in the global struggle against al-Qaida," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "The program is morally reprehensible and legally unjustified, and it has not made our country any safer. The president's veto is inexplicable and adds to his legacy of disregarding the rule of law and the core principles on which this country was founded." Unfortunately, disappointment means nothing to the Bush administration. This White House responds only to threats of official sanction or funding cuts. The Congress should recognize that fact and challenge the president's veto. Step One: Schedule override votes in the House and the Senate now. Don't delay, and don't play games. Get everyone on the record regarding waterboarding and related torture techniques -- which even Bush's candidate for president, Arizona Sen. John McCain -- says are at once immoral and ineffective. The override votes should be command performances. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be expected to participate in the Senate debate and vote. No excuses for them, and no excuses for McCain. No one running for president in 2008 deserves a vote if there is any sense that they would perpetuate Bush's lawlessness. Step Two: Explore the steps that must be taken to eliminate funds for torture and draw up the necessary language to be attached to appropriations for the agencies in question and the White House. There needs to be a "no money for torture" amendment that is easily understood yet ironclad in its commitments. Step Three: Feingold should dust off his censure motion against President Bush and press it more aggressively now than ever. He should include language regarding torture, and he should seek new co-sponsors -- especially a certain senator from Illinois and a certain senator from New York. Feingold's House colleagues should draw up specific articles of impeachment relating to torture. They should cite the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly bars cruel and unusual punishment of individuals incarcerated by the United States government -- as well as legal requirements established by our treaty commitments and formalized agreements with the world community, including the Geneva Conventions. It is fine to be disappointed with Bush. It is necessary to act to constrain him, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should join Russ Feingold in pressing the case. ' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM Ah, Carol, except in the broad and evasive sense that all motivations are personal, I think his assertion is without substance or merit. This is what I implied with my curt acronymic dismissal -- same shit, different day. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM What do you think, Amos... do you think Teribus could provide us with a list of the people in the public eye who are calling for impeachment who are doing so for personal reasons and also provide a list of the personal reasons? I don't think he can do it, myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM Children, back to your rooms. And don't come out until you can be civil. ;>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM Desperate words from a desperate man, I think, Teribus. Still enjoying the view from here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 09 Mar 08 - 07:17 AM "Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along." You mean pretty much as you do CarolC - Open minded, what you! You have got to be kidding you are the epitomy of a lying, racist, bigot who is totally incapable of rational thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:32 PM Definitely too stupid to argue with. But I'm not arguing - just putting a bit of a decorative frame around that fact and enjoying the view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM Hey CarolC you Twat I thought that I was to too stupid to argue with on another thread. Tell you what darlin' when you start answering the questions I have posed you then and only then can you have a go at me. Right for starters I want a clear and unequivocal response from you that with respect to violence in the middle-east between the Jews and the Arabs that it was the Arabs who instigated the violence based on circumstances that were completely false. If you are not prepared to do so, then please phrase some alternative scenario that is open for discussion, clearly stating the start time for the era that has to be discussed, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:27 AM Dare say I could state the same Amos, but I wouldn't need anything like the time, number of entirely meaningless "cut'n'pastes" or number of posts to arrive at that conclusion with regard to this topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:51 AM most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn List the ones who are doing it for personal motive, please, specifying which ones are doing it for re-election. For the ones who are not doing it for re-election, please tell us what the 'personal motives' are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:08 AM SSDD, T. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:05 AM Trouble is that most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn. Your "Impeachment" process is not a "legal" process, therefore phrases such as your "facts of crimes committed in office" and others yammering on about "evidence" of this or "evidence" of that only amounts to just so much hogwash. There is no legal or formal means to establish clearly whether or not crimes have been committed and there appears to be no standard set for the establishment, examination or presentation of what would constitutue "evidence". I know before anybody points it out that they are not the same as the political set up and machinery is entirely different but what you seek in your "Impeachment" process boils down to what in the UK Parliament would be called a "Motion of No Confidence"(Proposed by the Opposition) or "Motion of Confidence" (Proposed by the Government) in the Prime Minister. If either goes against the Government of the day it falls and a General Election has to be called. There will be no "Impeachment", because quite rightly Nancy Pelosi and most of those sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate fully realise exactly what damage it would do to the United States of America both domestically and internationally. With regard to both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq those same people are also fully aware of the part that they played in influencing and supporting the decisions made. So, my plea, most definitely "Not Guilty". I can hardly be an apologist for the crimes that have not been committed. Crimes that you and your supporters have yet to establish were ever perpetrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM THe pressure continues to build, Teribus. I am afraid you may be right, that the devil will be out of the stable before the machinery moves to close the door. But that does not change the fundamental facts of crimes committed in office. PErhaps we will nail the bastard post-officio, eh? With all you sarcasms about the futility of this thread, you create the impression of an apologist for the crimes involved. How do you plead? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM Well Amos, March has come in like a Lion and I daresay it will go out like a lamb with still no "Declaration of Impeachment" any nearer. All those groups you've cut'n'pasted about - don't they have any real function? Are they bored? Can't they think of doing something that actually needs doing? Going by the response garnered over the years this thread has been going, general concensus would tend to suggest that they are flogging a dead horse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 08 - 06:17 PM by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s) http://www.opednews.com If you've lost your house to a predatory lender and you ask your congress member to impeach Bush and Cheney for your loss, will they look at you like you're crazy? That depends entirely on how many of you are asking. If there are not enough of you, they'll look at you like you're crazy for suggesting impeachment as a response to illegal wars, lies to Congress, misappropriation of funds, rewriting bills with "signing statements," warrantless spying, extra-legal detentions, torture, war crimes, refusal to comply with subpoenas, or just about anything else. The White House could make the occupation of Iraq permanent or ignore a major hurricane or expose an undercover agent as payback for a whistleblower, and you'd get the "You've got to be nuts" look for suggesting impeachment if there weren't enough of you. As a matter of fact, many of us already have. But if the 81% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president were to demand his removal, he'd be out on his ear faster than you can rig an election, award a no-bid contract, or fire an honest prosecutor. A different question, of course, is whether, in asking for impeachment as a response to losing your house, you really would be crazy. On what grounds, after all, could you really argue that Bush and Cheney stole your house? (See balance of article here to find out...) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Barry Finn Date: 18 Feb 08 - 05:15 AM And now this from NH N.H. State Representative Betty Hall Announces Public Hearing to Petition Congress for Impeachment New Hampshire Representative Betty Hall Announces Expert Witnesses to testify at Legislative Hearing for House Resolution 24 to Commence Impeachment Procedures in the US Congress. Representative Hall's focus on House Resolution 24 begins the process of Impeachment for the President and the Vice President at the State level. In the State of New Hampshire, the procedure then goes to committee for a public hearing. Rep. Hall welcomes the public to attend and comment at a rally and a hearing: Rally: 12 Noon Tuesday, February 19 at the State House Plaza. Hearing: 1:00 pm Tuesday, February 19 at the State Legislative Office Building, Rooms 305 and 307. Key to New Hampshire's legislative process is a strong committee recommendation for passage in the full House. Because the committee level is crucial, Representative Hall has invited a number of expert witnesses to testify on five distinct articles of impeachment. Witnesses will include Selectman Dan DeWalt VT, Herb Hoffman ME NEImpeach.org, John Kaminski Maine Lawyers for Democrac,y and Paul Lehto, a lawyer representing Election Integrity. Uniquely for NH citizens, every bill introduced and sent to committee receives a vote in the full House. In NH there are 400 House legislators from a relatively small population state. In order for HR24 to be brought to Washington DC, only House passage is needed, neither a vote in the Senate nor a signature from the Governor is needed to send the petition to the US Congress. Representative Hall has worked tirelessly to make sure the people's voice is heard in New Hampshire. The committee hearing serves as an opportunity for the public to become involved, expressing the voice of a true democracy. Hall has declared that she will join the Code Pink hunger strike and is "willing to die for impeachment." http://afterdowningstreet.org/fasting You are encouraged to attend the public hearing to show support for Rep. Hall and this House Resolution. Flyer: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31092 More Info: http://afterdowningstreet.org/nh Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: CarolC Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM I got this in an email... Honk to Impeach "This week, every Member of Congress will be home working at their District Offices and meeting with the voters who elect them. So let's send them a loud and clear message: Start Impeachment Hearings for Dick Cheney Now. One great way to send that message is through "Honk to Impeach" actions at the District Offices of your Representative. These actions are fun and passing cars love it. It just takes 2-3 brave people to have a successful 1-hour event. Here's a national map with ongoing honk-a-thons: http://www.communitywalk.com/impeach If you don't see one near you, call your bravest friends and pick the date(s), time, and contact info. Find District Offices by searching for your Representative here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir Then create a map login and click "add a marker." To find other honkers, connect with activists in your Congressional District by logging in to Democrats.com and clicking "local": http://democrats.com/local Click [Post] next to your Congressional District and blog about your plans. All the details you need are here: http://www.democrats.com/honktoimpeach Since it's Washington's Birthday, we've created a special flyer you can print and hand out called WWWD: What Would Washington Do? http://www.democrats.com/files/WWWD.doc Time is running out so let's hit the streets this week! http://www.democrats.com/crucial-week-for-impeachment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 PM WASHINGTON -- Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., officially joined a small but persistent group of Democrats on Wednesday calling for a robust investigation into the tenure of Vice President Dick Cheney as a possible prelude to impeachment. DeFazio agreed to sign a letter circulated by Rep. Bob Wexler of Florida, who has been relentlessly driving the so-far-unsuccessful effort to boot Cheney from office. Despite Wexler's persistence and DeFazio's seniority, it's unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow impeachment activities. She has said repeatedly and consistently that impeachment "is off the table" because it would get in the way of other priorities facing Congress. Wexler is backing his demands by orchestrating a petition drive aimed at showing public demand for investigating Cheney. The focal point of that effort is a Web site, http://wexlerwantshearings.com, that allows anyone to sign the impeachment petition. So far he says he has more than 227,000 signatures. "The charges against the vice president relate to the core actions of this administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power," Wexler wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. "As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens," says the letter, which was signed by Wexler, DeFazio and 13 other lawmakers. DeFazio, who has been a frequent critic of the administration, said he had remained largely on the sidelines of the impeachment debate because it was centered in the Judiciary Committee, and he is not a member. " In other news: House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 1 hour ago "WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated. Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout. The vote was 223-32 Thursday to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings. Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law — set to expire Saturday — allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity. The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges. It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation. The action, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House. The administration has said the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution. Still, the resolution would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:55 PM Emailed from a friend; has not been evaluated: "ThereÕs a new rule on Capitol Hill: the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee can remove impeachment from the Constitution, but cannot also use telephones, Email, or fax machines, because the flood of pro-impeachment communications from outraged citizens is overwhelming each of those devices. DonÕt believe me? Try phoning, Emailing, or faxing John ConyersÕ office. Congressman John ConyersÕ telephone, by many reports, rang endlessly on Monday, approximately 60 times per minute, or as fast as people could get through. The same thing appears to be happening today (Tuesday). If you try to get through at 202-225-5126, chances are youÕll hear a busy signal. Other times it will simply ring forever until a recorded voice tells you ÒYour party is not answering, please try your call later.Ó Some people have had better luck by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 or through one of the toll-free numbers that activist groups use, and asking to be connected to John ConyersÕ office. Others have just run into busy signals that way too. If you are lucky, you will get through to a staffer, and by all reports they are very, very cheerful staffers glad that you called, no matter where in the country you live. Emailing the Congressman is out, because he has stopped accepting Emails, at least at this address john.conyers@mail.house.gov. I could tell you some of his staff membersÕ Email addresses, but then they wouldnÕt be able to work for a week. Faxing the Congressman is very much in, but you have to set your fax machine to repeatedly redial until it gets through. The fax number is 202-225-0072. You can also try these alternatives. Call ConyersÕ Judiciary Committee office at 202-225-3951. Or call his Detroit, Mich., office at 313-961-5670 or his Trenton, Mich., office at 734-675-4084. If you do get through, be prepared to hear that impeachment hearings are not happening, but hearings into impeachable offenses are. Even though these non-impeachment hearings will not make it onto television, and Conyers is not even announcing them ahead of time, and even though witnesses will refuse to show up, ConyersÕ staffers will try to tell you that hearings of the sort theyÕve done for the past 13 months are all thatÕs needed. Hmm. If that were true, would the phone be ringing the way it is?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM Boulder City Council ponders resolution on calling to impeach Bush Activists want document drafted to call for president's impeachment By Ryan Morgan Originally published 12:00 a.m., February 12, 2008 Updated 09:48 p.m., February 12, 2008 Boulder's elected leaders are expected to decide next week whether to draft and vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. For the past few weeks, activists have been showing up at Boulder City Council meetings, carrying signs, handing out "impeach" pins and asking City Council members to take up such a resolution. Similar measures have passed in cities across the country, including Detroit and Telluride. Liz Robinson, one of the organizers of the effort, said people hoping to see impeachment proceedings have given congressional Democrats -- who won a majority in the fall of 2006 -- plenty of time to act. But since they haven't, she said, locally elected officials should take up the slack."Whether or not it's the city's business directly, like potholes, I feel this affects all of us," she said. "We're the ones who are paying the taxes to support this administration's depredations, especially the war." Impeachment proceedings would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of Bush's eight years in office at risk, Robinson said. "We need to send a message that this all matters to us, whether it's last-minute or not," she said. The group appears to have some support among the City Council, although it's not clear if it has the five votes it would take to get a resolution drafted and subsequently debated. City Councilman Macon Cowles wrote in a memo to his colleagues that he'll likely make a motion at the Feb. 19 meeting asking that a resolution be drafted. "I believe that these citizens deserve a hearing," Cowles wrote to the council. It wouldn't be the first time the City Council has weighed in on matters far outside the city's physical boundaries. In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion. Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, who helped draft the 2006 resolution, said Boulder has a tradition of debating big-picture issues. "I'm a believer that the council should be responsive at the level of local government to issues that the residents raise, just like the Iraq war resolution," she said. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM And yet another month slips past Amos and still no sign of any impeachment proceedings, not long to go now. Of course if the Dems did want to throw away any chance they might have in the 2008 election they would take your advice and push for Impeachment. They're too bloody concentrated on getting themselves elected to give this nonsense a second bloody thought. Oh Amos I liked the link especially this part of it: THE WARS ARE ABOUT AMERICAN HEGEMONY-AND OIL The War in Iraq Oil "The hydrocarbon law when passed will grant immensely profitable access for international oil companies to an estimated 81% of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. The favored companies are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco. Sources for this section: 1. For copies of the Iraqi oil field maps, see the website of Judicial Watch, at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/oil-field-maps" Now that source mentioned there shows the "suitors" for Iraq's oil. Guess what Amos? None of the "favoured" companies feature, any explanation of that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM /11/2008 8:54:00 PM Is it time to consider impeaching the president? "It's been almost 10 years since the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath when asked during a deposition in the Paula Jones case whether he had had sexual relations with a White House intern. I was one of the lead attorneys in that case and had agreed to represent Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit because I believed the underlying principle in the case was too important to let it slide. Namely, no one is above the law, not even the president. I did not, however, agree with the impeachment proceedings charging Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Don't get me wrong: what Clinton did was unacceptable and unworthy of his office and his role as a national figure. However, there's a world of difference between lying about sex and blatantly disregarding the Constitution. As Elizabeth Holtzman, a former member of Congress who served on the House Judiciary Committee during President Nixon's impeachment, explains, "The Constitution specifies the grounds [for impeachment] as treason, bribery or 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a term that means 'great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.' As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power." Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush has repeatedly put himself above the law and abused the power of his office. Over the past seven years, Bush has greatly expanded the power of the president, in addition to unilaterally bypassing federal law to secretly, and illegally, listen in on the phone calls of American citizens and read our e-mails, among other things. His use of presidential signing statements is yet another example of his willingness to subvert the Constitution at almost every turn. Historically, presidents have used signing statements to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express dissatisfaction or pleasure with Congress. The previous 41 presidents combined challenged a total of only 600 laws through signing statements. Bush, on the other hand, has used the statements as a way to disregard certain laws with which he disagrees and, so far, has used the statements to challenge over 800 laws. "The laws Bush has challenged with signing statements include a ban on torture, stricter oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, restrictions against using U.S. troops to fight rebels in Colombia, requirements that his agencies provide information to Congress, and various affirmative action programs," writes Charlie Savage for the Boston Globe. Bush's latest signing statement was issued in response to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds nearly $700 billion to the war chest, along with a 3.5 percent military pay raise and improved health care and benefits for wounded troops. The Act also prohibits the government from spending taxpayer money to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, requires that intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA hand over reports and legal opinions to Congress, calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of waste and excessive force by military contractors abroad, and strengthens legal protections for whistleblowers who work for and report abuses of government contractors. Although President Bush disagreed with various provisions in the Act (primarily the ones intended to hold him or other governmental agencies accountable to our elected representatives in Congress), he did not express his disagreement with a veto, as the Constitution requires. Had he done so, Congress would have had to either reconsider it or override his veto. Instead, he issued another of his infamous signing statements in which he essentially tells Congress to stick it. According to this particular statement, if Bush wants to build permanent bases, he'll do it. And if he wants to order the CIA not to report to Congress, he'll do that, too. Such actions place the president outside the rule of law, which is foundational to our country. It keeps our country free and promotes democratic government. If the president can simply chart his own course and set his own rules, not being bound by either the Constitution or the other branches of government, he is "above the law" and becomes, in effect, a dictator who can do whatever he wants. He then becomes the law, which is precisely what the Founders intended to prevent when they drafted the Constitution. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) explains, "If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers." We've never tolerated that before in this country, and we shouldn't start now. The separation of powers, which is at the heart of our system of checks and balances, allows the president to have as much power as Congress and the courts but no more than that. The importance of this constitutional principle cannot be overstated. It ensures that power does not become centralized in a single branch of government, thereby preventing our country from sliding into an authoritarian regime. Thus, it's time for Congress to grow a backbone and send this president a clear message: either step in line with the rule of law and heed the voice of "we the people" who speak through Congress or face impeachment hearings. If Congress does not act, this president and those who come after him will continue to amass power at an alarming rate to the detriment of us all. We must never forget that America was founded on the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." It's not time to abolish our form of government, but it's certainly time to bring our elected officials under the rule of law. About the author Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM A persuasive discussion of crimes and falsehoods under Bush which makes an intetresting read. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19095.htm A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM "In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted the current president and vice president of the United States for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing U.S. and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on "imperial fantasies." Bush's and Cheney's crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to and lies about Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day. But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past 12 months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment." (From OpEd News) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM From the Philadelphia Enquirer an articulate discourse on impeaching the P and the VP: "Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney Elizabeth Holtzman served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981 Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them. They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment. There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power. Have Bush and Cheney done that? Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents. Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them. The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war. Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime? No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him. What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008. But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:...". See link above for the rest of the article. This piece has several salient features which differentiate it. One, it is by a retired US Representative. Second, it is unusual for the Philadelphia Enquirer to carry this sort of material, I believe. Third, it emphasizes the means of a Judiciary Committee. I wish Ms. Holtzman a warm reception for her views. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:19 AM Kucinich riles House GOP with plan to impeach Bush Plans measure to impeach Bush Thursday, January 24, 2008Molly Kavanaugh and Sabrina EatonPlain Dealer Reporters Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich created a stink on the House of Representatives floor Wednesday when he announced he'll introduce a measure to impeach President Bush when Bush delivers his final State of the Union address Jan. 28. "We already know the State of the Union," said Kucinich, whose earlier effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney has languished in the House Judiciary Committee because of opposition from Democratic leaders. "It's a lie." Republicans objected to Kucinich's statements, and the congressman returned to the floor a few minutes later to withdraw his "offending words." Florida GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns called his remarks a "clear and egregious violation of House rules" and scolded Kucinich for ut tering "personal accusations" against Bush and Cheney. The testy exchange came as Ku cinich launched a bid to raise money for his congres sional re-election campaign, urging voters in the 10th congressional district to send him donations of $100 or more so he can return for a seventh term. "Right now, I'm under attack by corporate interests, most of them from the city of Cleveland, who have an agenda that has nothing to do with the people of my community, nor with most people in this country," Kucinich says in a video posted on his congressional campaign Web site. The timing of the video is not coincidental, said Khaled Salehi, campaign manager for Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman, one of four Democrats trying to unseat Kucinich. On Wednesday Cimperman began airing a 30-second ad on local stations blasting Kucinich for missing votes in Congress and ignoring the district while he campaigns for president. The ad, titled "Quitting Time," will be aired multiple times during network news shows and on cable stations, Salehi said. Kucinich has missed 139 votes (11.6 percent) during the current Congress, including key votes on predatory lending and veterans health care, according to a database of congressional votes compiled by washingtonpost.com. Kucinich's video makes an indirect reference to Cimperman's ad. "Already, television commercials are flooding the Cleveland airwaves with a message that is designed to try to knock me out of office," Kucinich says in the video. "I've served with honor and dignity in the United States House of Representatives. I've led the effort against the war and for peace and for fair trade and for a not-for-profit health-care system, and now I need you to make sure that I can continue this work." Meanwhile, Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth, continued stumping in California for his presidential campaign. According to a report from the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the congressman is scheduled to be in California Friday to attend the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party's annual fund-raising dinner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state Senate resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney was approved by a committee Monday, taking the measure one step further than it went last year. The resolution by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, had little support from lawmakers last year, never getting to the Senate floor for a vote. But on Monday, it was approved by the five majority Democrats on the Senate's Government Operations and Elections Committee. Passing committee is a key hurdle, but does not guarantee that the measure will get a vote on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, has said she doubts the measure will get any time on the Senate floor this year. More than 80 people attended a testy hearing last week about the resolution, which included a heated exchange between a Republican senator and members of the audience. During the hearing, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, accused Oemig of using the resolution for "campaign purposes." That sparked yelling and boos from the audience, to which Roach responded by displaying a picture of her son, who serves in the military. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM Washington state Senator Eric Oemig has drafted a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. Oemig plans to introduce his resolution (SJM 8016) when the legislative session begins on January 14th. Senator Darlene Fairley, Chair of the committee that will handle the matter, has promised a hearing. Oemig introduced a different impeachment resolution last year, but was never granted a vote in the full Senate. The State Senate of Vermont did pass an impeachment resolution last year, and 10 other states introduced them. In a number of cases, U.S. Congress Members successfully lobbied state representatives to kill the resolutions. The New Hampshire State legislature is also expected to take up an impeachment resolution in mid-January. A great many cities, counties, towns, political parties, and organizations have passed resolutions in favor of impeachment: A list can be found here. Washington state has been a hotbed of impeachment activism led by Washington for Impeachment. Numerous resolutions have been passed in Washington: See this page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM With the original First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" looking on, admirers of the U.S. Constitution in the Washington D.C. National Archives Building today were ordered to leave for wearing tee-shirts reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney." Many of the tourist-activists were in town to hail the arrival of impeachment marcher John Nirenberg, the 61 year-old college professor who has just walked from Boston to D.C. to call attention to the need for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. In a telephone interview, one of the participants, Susan Serpa, age 56, told me she was looking at the displays when a female security guard approached her and said "You need to go speak to that man over there" indicating a burly security guard. When Serpa asked why, the woman said: "Your shirt." Serpa's shirt reads on the front: "Impeach Bush and Cheney, Change History." On the reverse it says: "MaineImpeach.org." Other security guards then approached Serpa and told her: "You need to leave because of your shirt." The ranking security officer present at the incident gave his name as Captain Judd. An impeachment resolution against Dick Cheney was introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and is now sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers. Despite pleas from growing numbers of Americans, Conyers has continued to keep the resolution bottled up, and steadfastly refuses to move it forward. The number for Conyers' office is 202-225-3951. A contact list for Conyers' major campaign contributors has been compiled by YaliesForImpeachment, along with a full contact list of Judiciary Committee members. In addition, Rep. Robert Wexler, another Judiciary Committee member, has undertaken a campaign to sway his colleagues on the committee to support the initiation of impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney. He has spent significantly from his own funds for an advertising campaign to combat the near total media black-out on the building pressure for impeachment, and is asking for help in financing further advertising. (Balance of story can be found here). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM Humor: Bush Impeachment Defense Memo Leaked, President Expects to Use Idiot Defence as reported in Unconfirmed Sources. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:27 PM From the Bangor, Maine Bangor News: Cheney Impeachment By BDN Staff Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - Bangor Daily News Over the past 18 months, a core group of Democrats and others from the left has steadfastly maintained that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached. Mainstream Democrats in Congress are sympathetic to their arguments, but most have bowed to the political reality that impeachment proceedings would gridlock the federal government in the last year of the Bush administration, distract lawmakers from resolving problems that affect the daily lives of Americans, and possibly trigger an endless cycle of reprisal impeachment attempts for future administrations. There is another angle on this difficult question, raised by Rep. Michael Michaud in a Dec. 21 letter to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers," Rep. Michaud wrote. The letter urges Rep. Conyers to schedule impeachment hearings on Mr. Cheney, though not on the president's conduct. Those supporting impeachment argue Cheney in his role in the administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution on matters such as warrantless telephone eavesdropping, deliberately misled Congress and the American people about the threat posed by Iraq and Iran, revealed the name of a CIA agent, and ordered the abuse of prisoners in violation of international treaties. The specific alleged abuses of power will, for the most part, fade away when the Bush-Cheney administration leaves Washington. But the "dangerously expanded" powers of the executive branch cited by Rep. Michaud could remain in place. Those powers will be inherited regardless of which party takes the White House, and while Democrats may relish the opportunities that come with an expanded presidency, ultimately, such an imbalance in the government is unhealthy and will increase the chance of future abuses. Mr. Bush's interpretation of executive powers has led critics to dub his tenure the "imperial presidency." Rep. Michaud correctly notes in his call for hearings on impeachment of Mr. Cheney that: "Expansions and potential abuses of power by this administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights." Rep. Michaud had given the impeachment matter long and careful thought, his press secretary Monica Castellanos reported, before calling for the hearings. The congressman has not prejudged the outcome of the hearings and possible investigation, she said, but he strongly believes those steps are essential in restoring Americans' trust in their government. It is a big step for Congress to take, especially in a politically charged presidential election year. But if it is possible, a dispassionate examination of the manner in which Mr. Cheney and this administration have stretched the executive branch to the point of distorting its constitutional definition would be enlightening, and could help rebalance the powers of the federal government. .... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM "1/9/2008 12:53:00 PM Email this article ¥ Print this article Letter: Reasons for impeachment Editor, Leader: In Steve Hurley's letter to the editor in the Dec. 26 Leader, he calls campaigning for impeachment a waste of time. The first phrase of his last paragraph is "I may be missing something," so I'd like to bring up several points I feel Steve may be missing. Yes, it is very late in the term to start impeachment proceedings, but since our representatives seem more influenced by large donations from corporations that profit from Bush's wars than by their constituents, we want to convince them that enough people are starting to pay attention so that money for TV ads might not be what elects them in 2008. If we can do that, the impeachment proceedings need not take so long. I see a hope that the people of our country can be awakened from the trance induced by fearmongering of profit-motivated media monopolies, and that an impeachment campaign may help do that. Also, if impeachment is carried as far as a trial in the Senate, it could be a chance for the Republican Party to regain some of its lost integrity and credibility, as with Richard Nixon's resignation. I was talking with a Republican friend recently who said she was really distressed that it was all right for them to lie. Steve writes that "time would be better spent helping the person you would like to see as the next president." The person I would very much like to see as our next president is Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has filed for impeachment of Dick Cheney. I see my two campaign efforts enhancing each other. Finally, even though I feel that Kucinich is the only candidate from either party who is proposing plans that could move us in really responsible, sustainable directions, I do not want him or anyone else to inherit the precedent of illegal power abuse that not holding Bush, Cheney and company responsible for would leave for future presidents.: WILLY STARK Port Townsend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM "The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night." Then I would have thought that Mr McGovern would have bothered to present this "so-called" evidence that has so far underwhelmed the majority as yet another month slips past into a new year Amos. Just think another eleven such milestones and it will all be acedemic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:52 PM "In Sunday's Washington Post, George McGovern, at 85-years-old, sternly recommends that Congress ought to impeach Bush and Cheney ("Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse"), even though much prevailing sentiment runs decidedly against it. He explains that after the 1972 presidential election, he, too, was of a mind to refrain from calling for Nixon's impeachment, namely out of a concern that his reproach would be perceived as a vendetta. He regrets that today, members of Congress are making similar calculations and accommodations and that impeachment is, therefore, highly unlikely. Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising. Yet the facts won't simply go away, McGovern reminds us, even as members of Congress and mainstream media pundits try to ignore them and to deny the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from them: Bush and Cheney "are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses." They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have willfully broken laws. They have lied to the American people. They have almost certainly committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The consequences of their actions have been devastating and will be long-lasting. They should be investigated, impeached, and tried. Period. My sense is that McGovern already knows that the purveyors of Conventional Beltway Wisdom will roll their eyeballs dismissively at his wayward op-ed. No one's in the mood for impeachment: It would be such a distraction, it would be such a downer, it could backfire, Democrats are on a roll, Republicans would never go along with it, we're all basking in Obamuckabee calls for transcending nastiness, let's move forward, it's the campaign season, hope hope hope, change change change, blah blah blah. I don't think McGovern really expects it to happen. He's writing, instead, for the historical record. "How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality, and lawlessness?" Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constitution -- Article II, Section 4 -- will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low. What presidential malfeasance could ever be worse? Illegal war. Torture. Plame-gate treason. Abu Ghraib. Katrina. Guantanamo. Illegal surveillance. Halliburton no-bid contracts. Blackwater. K-Street corruption. Enron. Politicizing the Justice Department. Signing statements. And so on. Hard to imagine a U.S. administration sinking much lower. According to the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." That's their stipulated job. If members of the 110th Congress fail to make a concerted effort in the upcoming year to uphold Article II, Section 4 of that same document, they are liable to down in history as abdicating their own constitutional duties. " Excerpted from The Huffington Report A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: katlaughing Date: 30 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM Go, Brattleboro! A friend sent me this, recently, it's useful when contemplating the idjit in the White House: "People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become, and they pay for it simply: by the lives they lead." ---James Baldwin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM "Brattleboro Vermont resident Kurt Daims has drafted a ballot question petition calling for the town to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution, and making it the law that if either man comes to town, he would be liable to arrest. Some will say that this is just another unenforceable ordinance at best, and an absurdity at worst. Others worry that it will detract from the gravity of the impeachment movement as it stands today, on the cusp of forcing hearings in the House Judiciary committee. The argument will be made that such ÒextremeÓ rhetorical proclamations only serve to divide us further from each other, marginalizing the demand for accountability, rather than promoting it. Upon reflection these arguments can be answered and laid to rest. To date, the most persuasive and productive arguments for impeachment have been based upon the Constitution, which is suffering most egregiously under this administration and Congress, and which expressly proscribes the remedy to be taken should these circumstances arise. And while these arguments are making headway in the halls of Congress, where impeachment must happen, the politicians who are supposed to represent us do not yet understand the depth and breadth of our disgust and dismay with their dereliction of duty. While a growing number have joined the call for impeachment, far too many are towing the identical Republican/Democratic party line of ignoring the Bush/Cheney administrationÕs repeated constitutional violations. When we last faced a King George who labored to: Òsubject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our ConstitutionÓ by: Òdepriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offensesÓ, when we last found that Òour repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuryÓ, we knew what conclusion to draw: ÒA prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Ó These of course are quotes from the Declaration of Independence. And when this document was solemnly signed and made public, it had no legal standing whatsoever. It had no chance of succeeding against the worldÕs greatest empire. It alienated the colonists still friendly to England. It drew a line that clearly demarcated the divide that already existed in colonial society. Those who signed it were branded as radicals and, in fact, made outlaws by virtue of their signatures. Independence was declared because the laws and actions of the government were violating the laws of nature and common morality. As members of a commonweal, colonists understood that it was their inherent right, if not duty, to rise in defense of societal standards of humanity, decency and fairness. Mr. Daims and others who drafted the Brattleboro Bush/Cheney Indictment are acting in the same spirit, and with the same moral authority as our founders did in 1776. Prosecutors in France, Spain and many other countries have issued indictments for crimes against humanity committed outside of their borders, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrator. In some cases, prosecutors have won arrests, extraditions and prosecutions. Why shouldnÕt Brattleboro give precedence to Constitutional, American and International law, rather than bow to political expediency and a misplaced desire to not rock the boat? The boat has already foundered. The nation is already divided. Our political leaders have debased themselves and rendered our Republic dysfunctional. Let us support this call for an indictment. Let Brattleboro show the nation that in the current course of events, it has become necessary for Americans to take action. The current government respects neither the Constitution nor the people. Let us represent ourselves." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM ust as Watergate brought down Richard Nixon, I finally have hope that the destruction of the CIA torture tapes will end the presidency of the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America. George W. Bush has managed to squirm out from under previous allegations of misconduct and lying. Destroying videotapes that refute his assertions that he and his administration did not torture prisoners goes way beyond the Òhigh crimes and misdemeanorsÓ section of the Constitution that would allow Congress to impeach him. Former president Bill Clinton's antics that resulted in his impeachment pale in comparison to the lies, deceit and fabrications made by George W. Bush. It is high time that Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, stop pussyfooting around and get down to the business of impeaching both the president and vice president before they can do any more damage to our Constitution and our country. Richard D. Muranaka Salt Lake City |
