BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:59 PM

Your obsessive-compulsive side is rearing its ugly head, Amos... ;-)

Hey, Dickey, are you gonna look up your stats too?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:58 PM

Geeze, LH, first you tell me I can't admit I'm wrong. Then when I offer evidence of having done so, you tell me I'm OC. So, lemme guess...you're a lose-lose artist? I guess I was wrong about you all along...sigh...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:25 PM

Alberto Gonzales' safety net
Confirmation hearings for his successor could spawn criminal investigations of the White House.

By Elizabeth Holtzman, ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, a former Democratic congresswoman from New York, is the coauthor of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens."


May 1, 2007

NO MATTER how many members of Congress lose confidence in Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush is unlikely to let him go. If Gonzales resigns, the vacancy must be filled by a new presidential nominee, and the last thing the White House wants is a confirmation hearing.

Already, the Senate is outlining conditions for confirming a Gonzales successor. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said that his panel would not hold confirmation hearings unless Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys to clarify whether "the White House has interfered with prosecution."

All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon's nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson's predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox.

The rest is history. Cox's aggressive investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup. When Cox sought White House tapes of Nixon's conversations with his staff, the president had him fired, unleashing a firestorm of protests. Americans demanded that a previously reluctant Congress start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Congress complied; the House Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member, voted for impeachment, and Nixon resigned.

Aspects of this history could easily repeat themselves. The Senate could demand, as it did in 1973, that a new attorney general appoint a special prosecutor, and this could again have dire consequences for the White House.

A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.

For starters, were any of the firings of U.S. attorneys federal crimes — such as obstruction of justice, designed to stymie investigations or to retaliate for prosecutions of Republicans? If so, who is responsible and how high up does that responsibility go? Did Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty, who gave inaccurate testimony to Congress about the firings, commit any crime in doing so? Were those who briefed him for that testimony complicit?

And what happened to the missing e-mail messages from Rove and others? Did these apparent violations of the Presidential Records Act — failure to keep copies of the exchanges — constitute federal crimes?

So there is ample work for a special prosecutor. The Senate could call for appointing one without waiting for Gonzales to resign. But in that case, Gonzales or McNulty would be making the appointment, and the integrity of the choice would be highly questionable.

That leaves Senate confirmation hearings of a new attorney general nominee as the main leverage for Congress to secure an independent criminal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.

Moreover, the Senate might use such hearings to do more than secure testimony from White House aides about the firings, as Leahy indicated. It also might use the opportunity to probe the Justice Department's role in mistreatment of detainees, four years of flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other serious matters.

Rather than face such scrutiny, the White House may prefer keeping a drastically weakened Gonzales in place. But doing so exacts a high price for the Justice Department and the nation. It damages department morale and credibility, undermines its ability to recruit and could affect perceptions of federal prosecutors, jeopardizing important cases. By retaining Gonzales to preempt Senate action, the president has signaled that this is a price he is willing to make the nation pay.

(From an LA Times Op-Ed piece)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:17 PM

The Mudcat search does not work for me. It only goes up to 2005.

I have appologized when I discovered I was wrong.

I see 35012 posts by Amos going back to 1999 when he could have displayed some popular views of the Clinton administration but failed to do so.

Where was his indignation about Clinton's domestic spying? His attacks on Iraq based on false intelligence? Rising gas prices? LOGCAPS for Halliburton? The bottom falling out of the stock market causing the beginning of a recession? Clinton's use of Guantanamo? 4417 military deaths in 4 years of "peace"?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:32 PM

Perhaps you're right, Dickey; I was less involved in political issues back then. But in light of the positiver accomplishments that occurred under Clinton's administration, I also had less motivation to do so. Clinton won his election fairly; he turned around the national insolvency, made major advances toward peace in the Middle East and in Ireland, improved the fate of the middle and lower classes in the United States; and almost all of the outrage about him was based on completely scurrilous falsehoods promoted by a desperate black PR campaign. At the peak of his troubles, with right-wingers demanding impeachment hearings and publishing details of his private life, his public polls were still far ahead of where Bush's have been lately.

But the point is not what Clinton did. The point is the deterioration of international repute, national integrity, and general rot at the top since Bush first bought the 2000 election.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:00 AM

Detroit City Council votes to impeach Bush
May 17, 2007

BY DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

The Detroit City Council approved a resolution Wednesday sponsored by Councilwoman Monica Conyers, the wife of U.S. Rep. John Conyers, to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

John Conyers, D-Mich., is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would start, and a bitter opponent of the Bush administration. But he has said that he does not intend to move forward with any impeachment effort.

Advertisement


The 7-0 vote by the all-Democratic council has no official weight. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the 2006 elections -- in which Democrats regained control of Congress -- that impeachment would not be on a Democratic House agenda. Pelosi could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Monica Conyers, a first term councilwoman, was unable to vote for her own resolution because she is in Hawaii for a national pension conference. Neither she nor her husband could be reached for comment.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney conspired to defraud the United States by "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war."

Detroit attorney Bill Goodman, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and an impeachment supporter, said he met Monday with Monica Conyers and the resolution's cosponsor, Councilwoman JoAnn Watson. At that time, Goodman said, Conyers told him she was "very interested in pursuing this and would share her views with her husband."

Goodman said the council vote was significant not only because of the ties to Conyers, but because Detroit is the largest city to date to approve a resolution endorsing impeachment."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:32 AM

Genral rot at the top?

What do you call this:

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:51 AM

May 17, 2007 at 05:55:34

BUSH HAS BEEN CONSISTENT in his criminal BEHAVIOR

by Vince Williams

http://www.opednews.com


(Excerpt)


From the outset, George W. Bush has combined a consistent deficiency in good judgement with a consistent willingness to lie, deceive and promulgate the kind of hatred and bigotry that also recurred in the statements of Jerry Falwell.

NOW, however, there can be no doubt that, in light of James B. Comey's testimony that it was George BUSH who deliberately broke the warrantless search laws, IMPEACHMENT seems completely appropriate. Breaking the law is NOT ONE OF THE PERKS of being President.


However, will the Senate Judiciary Committee give him a pass, realizing that his "PROTECTORS" can just play for time until Bush is no longer in the Whitehouse? Perhaps. However, it is my considered opinion that he should STILL be held accountable for the crime. One who commits a crime is a criminal. This doesn't end when he is "retired" from current employment.

George W. Bush committed a verifiable crime; and my best guess is that's just the tip of the iceberg. We'll find out about others, mark my words.

He got away with avoiding combat; he got away with winning a fraudulent election; his appointees have certainly demonstrated THAT BUSH POSSESSES a consistency in poor judgement. And THAT SAME POOR JUDGEMENT combined with an enormously inflated hubris has no doubt seen him break various laws. It goes with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:53 AM

I call it a granfalloon of unsubstantiated noise, myself.

Accusations, as the RNC knows very well, are real cheap.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:03 AM

A sweeping dismissal is also cheap.

Let's go over them one at a time. Was Clinton the First president to disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court?

____ yes

____ no

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:27 PM

"...Any politician (or party) that remains loyal to this misbegotten, corrupt and scandal-plagued administration is history. It is even becoming clear due to recent federal convictions (and more to follow) of poll workers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that Bush may indeed not have rightfully won the election in 2004. Bush and Cheney were meeting with disgraced secretary of state Blackwell in Ohio on election day in Columbus, and the same Internet servers that tried to hide, and subsequently allowed Karl Rove and others to delete thousands of emails, also were the same servers that hosted Blackwell's corrupt Ohio election results. Hmmmm? Fool us twice? (Google: Smartech scandal)

The dam is breaking. Where there is oversight of absolutely corrupted power it will come crashing down. It cannot suffer the light of day or the truth. The people are sick of the fear mongering, the secrecy, the lies about war, the torture, the outing of CIA agents, the unconstitutional signing statements, the politicizing of our government, the abandonment of science, the destruction of the environment and the abolishment of hundreds of regulations meant to protect us and our children. We are sick of the local and national GOP politicians fouling our water and land and using our taxpayer dollars for the benefit of the developers and the corporation, and most of all we are sick of money ruling our souls and owning our government.

Clinging to this sinking ship of fools will be other fools and a political party too loyal to do what's right, and too blind to jump before it is too late. Do we have to wait for Bush to let the next major terror attack hit us before we wake up to his negligence and incompetence? Impeachment is the only patriotic thing to do. Dying in vain for lies is a horrible thing and must be stopped.

Crede Calhoun
Friendsville (Maryland)"....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 11:01 AM

Speaking in Wisconsin, David Swanson said:

..."Impeachment is serious, and the Congress Members who actually do it should treat it as such. And so, in many ways, should we. The question of whether or not the world's most powerful and most fiercely armed empire ever to exist will be commanded from here on out by a president subject to the rule of law or by a dictator with total power, a unitary executive, is one of the most serious questions imaginable. But a successful movement requires spreading the word in fun and creative ways and making the dull sounding work of restoring our constitution enjoyable and productive of solidarity and community.

Based on the few polls that have been done, we know that we who favor impeachment are a majority or close to it. That should give us all the confidence we need to make impeachment happen. But it's not enough to be a majority. We have to feel like a majority.

One way to do that is to wear everywhere you go a t-shirt that says IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY. You can get one at www.afterdowningstreet.org but I recommend getting more than one, because you're going to want to wash them sometimes. I have lots of them in all different colors, and I've worn them for a couple of years now. The number of negative comments I've received I can count on one hand, and some of those led to good conversations. The number of compliments and shouts of approval I've received is in the thousands. And I can't keep count of the number of conversations that have been created by wearing these shirts.

Even people who will pick yes rather then no when asked if they support impeachment have lots and lots of questions and misconceptions and internalized fears and concerns. People get very caught up in the question of who will hold what office for a year or six months after Bush and/or Cheney are removed. As if that were all that's at stake here. Or people regurgitate their manufactured consent to the really quite radical notion that impeachable offenses have been committed but should not be pursued because that wouldn't be practical or viable or successful. I'm sure we won't cover all such questions tonight, but every one I've ever heard of is covered at www.afterdowningstreet.org – Click on Resource Center. But my point is this: if you don't wear the shirt or raise the topic, the questions never get asked and answers are never reached. And, in fact, by wearing the shirt you help answer most of the questions. No one who sees the word IMPEACH everywhere they look can claim impeachment isn't possible. Rightly or wrongly, there is too much vestigial belief in democracy floating about. And I'm convinced that a bit of it is justified, that if the public makes enough noise for impeachment it will happen. Our biggest obstacle is not bad arguments. It's silence.

What it's going to take is not just people who answer surveys correctly. It's going to take activists. It's going to take all of us acting the way we would if City Council announced that it was going to demolish our neighborhood next month. If we can keep the local import of impeachment in front of us, we can bring the requisite passion to a national campaign. Here's one of the many impacts:

According to www.costofwar.com the people of Wisconsin have spent over $6.8 billion on the occupation of Iraq. (And, please, let's call it an occupation. It's not a war, and it cannot be won or lost.) For $6.8 billion, Wisconsin could have paid for 330,484 college scholarships. Just the people of Madison alone have spent over a quarter billion dollars on this occupation. That's enough to build 2,280 housing units or to pay for 33,545 kids to attend Head Start for a year.

"...The Walworth County Democratic Party passed a resolution for impeachment last week, and not for the first time. The Wisconsin state Democratic Party passed an impeachment resolution on June 12, 2005. Only Nevada's Democratic Party had done it first. Now 14 states have done so, and 10 of them since Nancy Pelosi claimed impeachment was off the table.

Across the country at least 80 cities and towns have passed impeachment resolutions, and many more have proposed them. Town and County and city resolutions are excellent ways to influence Congress. Even better is a state resolution. A state resolution has been introduced in Wisconsin by Representative Frank Boyle. I haven't had the privilege of meeting Representative Boyle, but people who take actions like his should be very conspicuously rewarded and should be drafted to run for Congress.

Wisconsin is one of 10 states that have introduced impeachment resolutions. There have been votes in the Washington State Senate, the Vermont House, and the Vermont Senate. And in the Vermont Senate, impeachment passed. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 12:37 PM

"Oberlin asks Congress to impeach Bush, Cheney

OBERLIN (AP) — The City Council of this left-leaning college town unanimously voted to ask Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oberlin, about 30 miles southwest of Cleveland, joins at least 56 other cities and towns nationwide, and the Vermont Senate, in approving such a measure.


ADVERTISEMENT
   
After the vote Monday, the audience broke into song, performing a rendition of "This Land is Your Land" that had council members singing along, too.

"Ohio is a battleground for elections and this is really sending a strong message," Councilwoman Eve Sandberg said. "The people who took an oath to uphold our Constitution are not doing it and it's time we asked them to."

The resolution was brought up by resident June Goodwin, who wore an "Impeach Bush" button along with more than a dozen supporters. She helped start a petition signed by 648 Oberlin residents.

The council declared the measure an emergency, allowing the final vote to occur at its introduction. No one spoke in opposition.

Several reasons were cited for seeking impeachment, including what the backers claim was the intentional misleading of Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq to justify war.



..."

From here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 07 - 04:42 PM

The Impeachment Chronicles: Will Cheney and Bush Ever be Held Accountable?   

By Bill Hare
05/27/2007 04:00:32 PM EST

"Accountability is an old-fashioned word that the truth jugglers of the Cheney-Bush Administration and important elements of the mainstream media have sought to effectively remove from the English language.
The reason why that word accountability is looked upon with such morbid fear along with savage distaste is that if followed by definition the neocons marching under the Cheney-Bush brigade would have been removed from office long ago. The sun light of accountability would deliver a piercing arrow of permanent destruction to elements of darkness that have endured through perpetuating patterns of lies.

In the New York Times on Friday, May 25, it was reported that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had accused the Bush Administration "of ignoring preinvasion warnings from the nation's spy agencies that a war in Iraq could be followed by violence and division and that it could strengthen the hands of Al Qaeda and of Iran."

According to the Democratic chairman of the Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, "Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings, and worse, to plan for them, has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price."


The overall report was approved in a 10-5 vote. All eight Democrats on the Committee voted affirmatively. Two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, joined them.
Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri supplied a note of unintended humor in a strong dissent by complaining that the inquiry "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

Bond's lament is highly laughable. He is one of the brigade of martinets marching to the tune of pied piper Bush, who has proclaimed that in the war on terror you are either "with or against me" and that one had better not be against him because, after all, Bush receives his advice from direct communication with God.

The Cheney-Bush neocon brigade is known for slavish repetition rather than originality, so it came as anything but a surprise that Bond called the study of prewar assessments "a bad idea" and called for the committee to stop rehashing the past controversies and to focus instead on "the myriad of threats we face today."

How we recall the same sentiment being expressed in almost those identical words by Dick Cheney when, in the wave of fourth of July speeches and sainthood declarations from the media for Rudolph Guiliani, that an independent investigation be conducted into the causes of the 9/11 tragedies.

Cheney promptly turned thumbs down on such an idea. We should, after all, concern ourselves with preventing such attacks in the future instead of looking to the past.

So a building is burnt to the ground and the insurance company holding the vital policy asks for an investigation to determine how it all happened. The rejoinder is, "No fair! That already happened! We're interested in preventing future fires!"

Yes, more bright logic from a group of stumbling neocons frightened that the public may ultimately learn the truth about them and demand immediate answers. This is a consequence they morbidly fear as they dodge responsibility in their never-ending snake dance of deceit.

Congratulations, Senator Bond. Rudy Guiliani could not have said it better. Keep sticking those fingers in the dike to prevent the whole town from being flooded. In this case the floodtide would come in the form of truth, sanity and reason, alien concepts to this group.

Investigation? You know that familiar refrain, "You're giving aid and comfort to the enemy!" There's also the familiar corollary: "Remember, the root cause of all this lies with the terrorists!"

The second point is true enough in a certain context, but one that the neocons do not wish for us to explore. Enough independent investigation might establish that there are different terrorists out there serving as provocateurs that the neocons do not wish for us to know about since the results hit too close to home.

It is therefore understandable why Senator Bond needs to keep playing the partisan card with such unflagging repetition. He is terrified of us exploring further.

"Senator Rockefeller and I have very different views," Bond said at the end of the New York Times article. "But we're trying to get these battles behind us."

Please note the loaded propaganda message. It makes one wonder if Bond worked on his comments in concert with resident neocon propagandist Karl Rove. Bond and the neocons certainly are "trying to get these battles behind us."

This is the neocon ploy. Paint any investigative effort to get at the truth behind the Iraq War and 9/11 as invidious propaganda designed to shift concentration away from the war on terror.

If enough Americans can grasp the destructive charlatanism in play here then the truth can eventually be known and Cheney and Bush, along with their accomplices, will ultimately have to begin paying the ultimate price for destructive global and domestic policies grounded in deceit. '

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:03 AM

Most delegates who attended the May 18-19 Massachusetts Democratic Convention came expecting this to be an ordinary off-season convention, a so-called issues convention where no important issues are discussed, expecting to see the usual faces, with maybe a few more gray hairs. The delegates were giddy about the recent election victory of Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, but perhaps didn't expect the outcome of the convention to be explosive or necessarily historic. But, that mood changed when the delegates arrived, and met dozens of petitioners asking them to sign onto resolutions on both impeachment and the housing bubble's collapse and the global economic breakdown crisis.

At the May 18 pre-convention party, and in the early morning hours the next day, the LaRouche Youth Movement worked to collect the 50 signatures of delegates necessary to submit resolutions to be debated and voted on during the proceedings of the convention. The LYM had composed two resolutions: one, calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, and the other, calling for an emergency FDR-style freezing and reorganization of the banking system, to protect families from the collapsing mortgage and real-estate bubble. The Progressive Democrats of America also had several petitioners collecting signatures for a resolution calling for double-impeachment.

When delegates heard that there would be debate during the convention on impeachment, their eyes got wide and they grabbed the clipboards, eager to sign, urging their friends to sign as well. The response was similar on the housing resolution, not because every delegate understood what the solution was, but because this crisis has touched every citizen of Massachusetts; many people are very anxious about the current crisis, and the magnitude of what they sense is soon to come.

By 9:00 a.m., the three resolutions were ready to be turned in, with sufficient signators; the Impeach Cheney resolution had 98 signatures, and the housing one had 78. Even this preliminary petitioning shaped the discussion among delegates. Many were excited to see young people pushing hard to submit the resolutions that we had composed, and the degree to which we were clearly organizing around not only getting Cheney out, but having a positive policy agenda to contribute to the Democratic Party. As soon as some of the delegates heard that the resolution was calling for the impeachment of Cheney, they exclaimed—this must be LaRouche! Some of these delegates had seen the LaRouche Youth Movement at previous conventions, and were glad to see that we were pushing in a bigger way than they had ever seen us do before.

Word of our organizing spread rapidly. When newly elected chairman John Walsh was approached about the resolutions that the LYM was submitting, he replied that he had already read both resolutions. We only ran into a few delegates who refused to sign because they were decidedly against both Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon LaRouche. But, the name of FDR began to spread; later in the day, many elected officials, including Governor Patrick, felt compelled to make speeches passionately referencing Franklin Roosevelt. And, as the Progressive Dems submitted their petitions, stickers that said "Impeach" could be spotted on lapels everywhere one looked.

The formal proceedings began with the chairman speaking to 2,000 delegates, telling them that in the last year, the Massachusetts Democrats had made history, electing their first African-American Governor, but that electing Democrats wasn't enough. He called on the party to change from a culture of talking and complaining, to a culture of action—get off your comfortable seats and do something! After Walsh, the speakers included Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and the new Attorney General, Martha Coakley. It must have seemed to many of the delegates that these party leaders were speaking in support of the resolutions they had just heard the LYM petitioning for outside! Galvin emphasized something he identified as not just being a "good cause," but as being a reality that must be dealt with: the serious problem of looming foreclosures, thousands at risk of being homeless. He called for emergency measures to protect people, including a change in the antiquated laws governing foreclosures that have been on the books since the 1850s! He then passionately denounced the Bush Administration as being incompetent and disastrous, calling Bush a perpetual petulant child, unwilling to accept the fact that he's been wrong. Applause began to greet his words as he called for the Iraq War to be ended, to send a message to the Democrats in Washington not to accept any delay!

Next, Attorney General Coakley spoke. Her speech resonated with Galvin's, identifying the problem of predatory lending and investments that hurt people who are also trying to deal with collapsing infrastructure. She denounced Bush, Karl Rove, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, the war in Iraq, the scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center, and demanded a change in national policy about this war.

And finally, the president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO promised that he would knock on hundreds of thousands of doors with the message—"Bush and Cheney, They gotta go! We're going to run them out of town!"—which he repeated again and again. He received a standing ovation.

By the time the debate on the resolutions began, many of the delegates had recognized that this wasn't an ordinary convention. Jim Roosevelt, chair of the rules committee and grandson of Franklin D. Roosevelt, introduced the first resolution, a resolution on the housing crisis, which was distributed to every delegate in the room while he read the text out loud from the podium.
...Resolution on the Impeachment of Vice-President Cheney
"Whereas, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney have consistently and knowingly rejected the will of the people of the United States of America, who expressed their voice in the mid-term Congressional elections of November 7Th, 2006. At the command of Vice-President Cheney, President Bush chose to veto (only his second veto in six years as President) the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, in which that new Congress calls for a timetable on Iraq troop withdrawal, demonstrating his commitment to a failed war, and to his surge policy of escalation;

"Whereas, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), has introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney in H.R. 333, calling for impeachment based on high crimes and misdemeanors, for 1) deceiving the people and Congress of the U.S. about alleged Iraqi WMD; 2) deceiving the people and Congress of the U.S. about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; and 3) openly threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States;

"Whereas, over 90 cities across the United States, have passed resolutions supporting the Impeachment of Vice President Cheney, including one by unanimous vote in the Detroit City Council on May 16th, 2007, as well as a resolution supporting impeachment of Dick Cheney from the California State Democratic Convention on May 1, 2007;

"Therefore, be it resolved, that the Massachusetts State Democratic Party calls on our party leadership, our party's presidential pre-candidates, and our United States Congress, to support Rep. Kucinich's call for the immediate impeachment and removal from office of Vice President Richard B. Cheney. We ardently hope that this resolution becomes the policy of the national Democratic Party; and that our party focus on the issues that our esteemed Governor Deval Patrick called attention to, in a recent speech, stating that rising mortgage foreclosures is not okay, collapsing infrastructure is not okay, rising violence in neighborhoods is not okay, and to deal with these crises, we as a party must be bold, as bold as Franklin Roosevelt: FDR's approach saved the Country; Democrats can save the Commonwealth and the Nation again."...



Full text can be found on this page.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:05 AM

From POrtland, Maine:

Protesters At Statehouse Call For Bush Impeachment


AUGUSTA (NEWS CENTER) -- A group made up of peace activists, lawyers, and leading democrats are calling on the Maine House of Representatives to pass a resolution in support of the impeachment of President Bush.

Portland Demcorat Ethan Strimling says he will submit a bill calling for the legislature to support a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Strimling says the signatures gathered throughout Maine supporting the measure should get the attention of his colleagues.

The signatures were brought to the Speaker of the House's office and to Senate President Beth Edmonds after protesters held a loud rally outside the statehouse Tuesday.

Petitions with the signatures were also delivered to the Maine offices of Congressmen Allen and Michaud.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:10 AM

From Edison, New Jersey:

EDISON -- President Bush will be coming to Edison today, and New Jersey residents on both sides of the political spectrum have been diligently preparing for his arrival.

On the GOP side, the Republican State Committee has organized a fundraiser and sold tickets for $300 and photo opportunities with the president for $5,000.

Various Democratic groups, meanwhile, have come together to organize protests near the New Jersey Convention and Exposition Center, where the event will be held.

Before Bush speaks to the crowd of supporters, a group of Democratic organizations will greet passers-by with an event of their own -- a demonstration from the parking lot next to the Holiday Inn and Harold's Deli on King Georges Post Road.

"The president coming to New Jersey is really a slap in the face, we feel, to the vast sentiment among most New Jerseyans," said Eve Weissman, an organizer for New Jersey Citizen Action, one of the primary groups involved in the event. "New Jerseyans really feel that the Bush agenda is not in sync with the values of New Jersey working families. ... And we really want to call attention to the fact that New Jerseyans are really upset with the current state of affairs in Iraq."

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-Long Branch, Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Metuchen, and Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, D-Union, will speak at the rally. The demonstration will involve Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, the Teamsters Union, Democracy for America, the New Jersey Stonewall Democrats and the New Jersey Impeach Group. Speeches will go from 3 to 4 p.m.

Township police, meanwhile, will be working with the Secret Service, the Middlesex County Sheriff's Office, the state police, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and the township police auxiliary to provide security for the event, township spokesman Jerry Barca said.
...

The New Jersey Stonewall Democrats, a grass-roots gay rights organization, will protest the president's stance on homosexuality.

"This administration has been horrible for the gay community and has used us as a scapegoat," said Joan Hervey, the communications director for the Stonewall Democrats. "We want to show him how we feel about him."

The New Jersey Impeach Group's message is clear: They'll be demonstrating because they want to impeach the president.

"Not only do Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney have to go, they have to be impeached, removed, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and put behind bars where they can do no more harm to our country or our world," said Stuart Hutchison, an organizer for the North Jersey Impeach Group, one of three in the state.

The group has started a campaign to get the state Legislature to introduce a resolution to impeach, Hutchison said.

"This country is on the brink and if Bush goes any further, it could fall right off," he said.

From the New Jersrey Courier News.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:26 PM

Al Gore against any attempt to impeach Bush
PTI
Thursday, May 31, 2007 20:43 IST



For the latest World News on mobile sms WOR to 4567

Email Article    Print Article
Most Emailed Articles    Most Viewed Articles
Share this article    RSS Feed
Digg it
Add to del.icio.us
Google bookmarks
Yahoo! bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Add to Reddit
To reprint this article, contact 3DSyndication





WASHINGTON: Former US vice president Al Gore, a staunch critic of George W Bush, has said he doesn't agree with calls for impeaching the president due to lack of "time" and "consensus."

Many democrats feel that Bush should be impeached for allegedly misleading the country deliberately in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

From http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1100316

From Madison Wisconsin:

"Dear Editor: Please support Rep. Frank Boyle's effort to get Wisconsin to join other states in calling for the impeachment of George Bush. Torture? Pre-emptive war? Secret CIA prisons? Wiretapping? What has our country come to?

I am also a conscientious objector and am using civil disobedience to withhold a portion of my federal tax obligation. I was a student in Germany in the '50s, and what I heard from German citizens is what I now see in the U.S.

Daniel J. Guilfoil

Monona"

And from Fox News:

"Congressman Conyers Supports Movement to Impeach Bush, Cheney
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

DETROIT — U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but stopped short of pledging to take action to back it.

"I've been supportive of that movement," said Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that would lead impeachment hearings. "I encourage that nationwide."

But Conyers, who left a Detroit church before a town-hall meeting attended by a standing-room-only crowd of about 250 people, remained noncommittal about lending his official backing for impeachment proceedings. Conyers had also convened a separate town-hall meeting in Detroit on Tuesday evening to discuss high gas prices.

"The goal is whether to impeach or follow up on the defects and disabilities of an administration" that has shut out Congress, he said Tuesday."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:53 PM

"...They came together to discuss whether the Bush administration has committed impeachable offenses and, if so, if Congress should act immediately to impeach him.
"I think this war is a waste of lives, time and money," St. Charles resident Glenda Alar
said. "It's not going to solve anything."
Her husband, Bill, agreed.
"Our country's reputation has been destroyed," he said.
The World Can't Wait Web site says the organization is urging "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration. We seek to create a political situation where the Bush administration's program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office and where the whole direction he has been taking U.S. society is reversed."
Town hall meetings on impeaching the Bush administration are being held across the country over the next several weeks.
Panelists at the Batavia forum included Jason Snart, associate professor of English at the College of DuPage, Nick Stein, member of the board of the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, and Liz Lazdins of the World Can't Wait Chicago Steering Committee.
Lazdins said Bush has abused the public's trust with illegal wiretappings, gross negligence to respond to the Hurricane Katrina crisis, failure to provide adequate health care to veterans and lying about weapons of mass destruction.
"Now he has opened Pandora's Box in the Middle East. We can't just wait until 2008 and let them walk away from this travesty," Lazdins said. "We have to hold them accountable now."
While some said the struggle to impeach Bush will take years longer than the President has left in office, holding the President and his administration accountable is still necessary.
"The success lies in the insistence of bringing to light all of the lies, treachery and mal-administration," Snart said.
"The issue is the moral obligation that faces us all," added Stein. "What are we going to say for ourselves to subsequent generations when they ask us, 'What were you doing while people in Afghanistan and Iran were being bombed?' We have an obligation to make impeachment the issue."
While Johnson disagreed with the stance of most people at the meeting, he strongly supports their right of the first amendment's freedom of speech.
"I'll die for their right to be wrong," he said."

(From Batavia, Illinois

---

"My Turn: Arguments against impeachment fall short

Published: Thursday, May 31, 2007
By Dennis Morrisseau

Two objections raised by opponents of impeachment are: 1) impeachment would distract from the investigations that are happening right now and 2) given the political landscape, it is not possible to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate necessary to convict, so why proceed?

These arguments are nonsense or worse.

1. Impeachment would heighten focus on investigations of wrongdoing. Here is the text of the U.S. House resolution in the Nixon impeachment (HR.803, Feb. 6, 1974):

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

2. Only the House Judiciary Committee takes up impeachment. That committee can and historically it has been able to handle other tasks simultaneously with an impeachment investigation. It can cite other investigations by other committees of the House and Senate, giving increased prominence to those investigations; but nothing about impeachment would stop other committees from pursuing investigations of interest to them, or the regular work of Congress.

In April alone, while conducting its attorney purge investigation, the committee had time to pass a federal hate crimes bill, express concern about a raid at a mall in Chicago, look for justice for survivors of the 1921 Tulsa riot, examine federal judicial compensation, and investigate Katrina's impact on New Orleans' criminal justice system. But even if impeachment were to take up the whole attention of the House Judiciary Committee, that amounts to another investigation -- in this case, one that reaches all the way to Bush and Cheney -- something other investigations at this point are not doing. We might want to ask why.

3. Not even Republicans are stones. Discovery of wrongdoing by Bush or Cheney will move Republican votes. There are 49 Republicans in the present Senate, 21 of whom will have to face the voters in 2008. In 1974 there were 42 Republican senators -- clearly enough to block impeachment of Nixon. But Nixon resigned prior to an impeachment vote after House Judiciary Committee hearings very clearly sketched in for Americans just what Nixon had allowed to be done on his watch and a delegation of Republican Senators told him bluntly that he would receive no more than 15 supporting votes out of 42 Republicans in the Senate. The reason for the lack of Republican support for Nixon was clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing unearthed during the Watergate criminal investigations.
"

(From Burlington, Vermont)

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 12:07 AM

Gore Doesn't Agree with Bush Impeachment

Former Vice President Al Gore says the drive to impeach President Bush is doomed to failure, and he doesn't support it.

In an interview with PBS, Gore dismissed the notion that Bush will be impeached due to allegations that he misled America in the days before the invasion of Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/31/215855.shtml

When asked if impeaching Bush would be a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 04:54 PM

Dickey:

I posted that article on May 31. Please notice what precedes you so as to avoid double posts, and wasting bandwidth.

In other news:

"June 01, 2007

6/1: Let's Pretend ...

Let's pretend the House Judiciary Cmte. tires of Monica Goodling and Co., and returns their attention to the NSA surveillance program. Article II powers aside, has anyone really made the case Pres. Bush didn't violate FISA? Wouldn't monitoring Americans phone records contra to federal law constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? And if articles of impeachment were drawn up, after the immigration debacle, who exactly would come to Bush's defense? Laura Ingraham? National Review? Conservative stalwart Ace of Spades sums up conservative sentiment: "Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts.""

(From a blog).


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 01:05 AM

Amos:

Was that the one that you wasted bandwidth on by putting thie in your post:




For the latest World News on mobile sms WOR to 4567

Email Article    Print Article
Most Emailed Articles    Most Viewed Articles
Share this article    RSS Feed
Digg it
Add to del.icio.us
Google bookmarks
Yahoo! bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Add to Reddit
To reprint this article, contact 3DSyndication


That was a different article. mine was from PBS.

Then you post lets pretend from a blog? That is some serious use of banswidth.

What do the pre-schoolers in your area think of the situation?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 03:34 AM

(Sigh)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 09:18 AM

Local activists seek impeachment
Group gathers 2,500 signatures against Bush, will petition Legislature
By Raymond Drumsta
Journal Staff

ITHACA — The weekend of the Ithaca Festival found some area activists bearing the heat and hitting a hot-button issue — the possible investigation and impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The activists, representing a group called the "Campaign for Impeachment," are gathering signatures for a petition urging the Tompkins County Legislature to pass a resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry into the activities of Bush and Cheney.

        
They plan to present the petition and resolution at the Legislature's scheduled meeting on Tuesday evening, according to group spokesperson Greg L. Potter, who works as an administrative assistant at Cornell University.

"The hope is that the Tompkins County Legislature passes the resolution, and that will encourage the state assembly to pass one as well," Potter said.
As of Saturday, the group had gathered nearly 2,500 signatures, Potter said, which should reflect a groundswell of support for the resolution.

The group is a loose coalition composed of various individuals, the Tompkins County Marches for Peace and the Ithaca Peace Vigil, Potter said. The coalition formed after a meeting on March 17, he said.

"It was decided at that meeting that impeachment was the best way to stop the war," Potter said.

The resolution alleges a list of "Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney," including "violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization;" and "violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without a warrant."

The allegation of fraud to sell the Iraq war and the wiretapping allegation, to him, are the most serious, Potter said.

"There's plenty of evidence if you read between the lines," Potter said about the fraud allegation. As for the wiretapping allegation Potter said, "We know that was illegal, period. That's common knowledge."

The resolution also claims that Bush and Cheney violated the Geneva Conventions by "authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross."

"Those are clear violations of the Geneva Convention, which was ratified by Congress," Potter said. "When Congress ratifies a treaty, it's law."

Potter said he's been communicating with his county representative, Legislator Martha Robertson, D-13th Dist., by e-mail. Robertson expressed some concern, Potter said, that impeaching Bush and Cheney may cause a backlash among voters which could reverberate in the 2008 elections.

"That's absolutely a non-issue," Potter said. "We can't not do this because we think it may damage the Democrats' political strategy for 2008. People will continue to suffer and die in the war because (the Democrats are) plotting strategy. If it's wrong, we have to do something about it." ...

(From theIthaca Journal

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:05 PM

Author makes case for impeaching Bush



By Rick Steelhammer
Staff writer
The Charleston Gazette (Excerpt)

There might not be enough impeachment votes in Congress to remove President Bush from office, but author and journalist Dave Lindorff believes the impeachment process would bring to light enough abuses of presidential power to derail his second term.

"Once his crimes are laid out on national television, he'll be thrown overboard by his own party, or, like Nixon, he'll strike a deal to leave office," predicted Lindorff, who was in the Charleston area Monday to speak at West Virginia State University.

Lindorff, a former Los Angeles Daily News reporter and the former China correspondent for Businessweek, has written for The Nation, Rolling Stone, Forbes and Salon, in addition to producing an online column at www.thiscantbehappening.net. Last year, the two-time Fulbright scholar co-authored "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush," produced by Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press.

In an interview preceding his appearance at State, Lindorff said he considers himself generally pessimistic about the odds of a Bush impeachment trial taking place, given the hands-off stance taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic leaders.

"The congressional leadership is moving very slow at this point," he said. "But things tend to move fast in Congress once they do move, so I can't say, no, it won't happen. Eleven states are considering impeachment resolutions now, and a Newsweek poll last October showed that 53 percent of the American public favor impeachment."


...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:26 PM

Well Amos, yet another month has passed us all by and still nothing on the impeachment process.

What on earth is the hold up? I mean all that supposed evidence, all those prominent persons lining up to add their weight to Amos's drive for impeachment.

Of course nothing is going to happen because all those who could possibly move on this realise a certain number of things:

1) Nobody lied
2) Nobody mislead anyone
3) Both houses were given the information as reported by the UN and as analysed by the Intelligence Agencies of USA.
4) It was joint House Security Committee that identified the threat that Iraq posed.
5) Regime change was already official US foreign policy and had been since 1998.
6) Everybody is too busy on their election campaigns to bother with an impeachment process that will fail.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM

T:

If you honestly feel that no lies have been promulgated by the Bush Administration, you either haven't been paying attention, or you are so deeply wrapped in your wooly cloud of true-believer denial that you can't draw a bead on reality even after two cups of coffee.

So far, all we have seen of the impeachment movement is a LOT of grass roots vocalization and one article from Conyers.

But -- ya never know. Keep your fingers crossed and your slime-eater may have to face the music some day.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:48 PM

Next Presidential election is how many months away Amos?

Do you honestly think that they are going to waste their time on a useless impeachment process that may harm their "run" at the White House? Not on your life - self interest rules - as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:47 AM

Impeachment resolution passes
County representatives urged to push investigation of Bush, Cheney
By Timothy Cama
Ithaca, NY, Journal

ITHACA — After almost an hour of debate, the Tompkins County Legislature passed a resolution Tuesday evening to urge the county's representatives in the state legislature to recommend that the United States Congress investigate charges against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to determine if they warrant impeachment.

Nine legislators voted in favor of the resolution, as submitted by Pamela Mackesey, D-City and Town of Ithaca, while six opposed it.
   
The resolution declared that "substantial evidence has been gathered that indicates that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors."

Among the charges listed were "Misleading Congress and the nation about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda," and "authorizing the unlawful use of torture and extraordinary rendition."
After public comments, Chairman Tim Joseph, D-Town of Ithaca, ruled to debate and vote upon the resolution, which the Legislature recognized as "Resolution No. o" immediately, as it would usually have been put off until later in the meeting. A motion to overrule his decision failed.

A motion was then set forth to table the resolution indefinitely, because, as Richard S. Booth, D-City and Town of Ithaca, said, it is beyond the Legislature's jurisdiction. The motion failed as well, opening debate about Resolution No. o.

"It is absolutely within our job to listen to you," said Martha Robertson, D-Town of Dryden. ...

---

"A healthy and moral Society can exist only when there is a rule of law applied equally and fairly to all citizens, from the most powerful to the weakest, from the wealthiest to the absolute poorest, equally and fairly to all races, religions, and any citizen who doesn't fit into the above. Our once great country has been weakened by a vile administration that would ignore the rule of law. Left un-addressed this cancer will continue to weaken the resolve of its citizens and slowly the "Law of the Jungle" will supersede the "Rule of Law".

We must stop this slide into an oppression by the few, those like Bush and his minions. We must insist, no force, a return to Rule of Law for our country. This is the first step toward reclaiming our country for our children and their children, and on and on. We have to impeach Bush, Cheney, and others of the Government who have been complicit in this vileness. Our final act should be to put in place a fail safe method to bring to heel those that would enable a dictatorial White House.

Once that is done we need to bring in the Neo-Con profiteering group for trial as war criminals. Hundreds of thousands dead, $ Trillions squandered for the suppliers of war materials, and hatred spread around the world for the once revered United States - all because a few decided to make a bunch of money, corner energy resources, and perpetuate their power and position. The time is now to stop the madness."

by Cliff Carson, a freelance writer, here

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:05 PM

BREAKING: Five US Reps Support Cheney Impeachment

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (June 06, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) has become the fifth total co-sponsor of US Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) bill to impeach Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. In addition to Kucinich, the additional three Members of Congress who have signed on to H. Res 333 are US Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Albert Wynn (D-MD).

"This Administration has continued to erode the trust of the American people and enough is simply enough," stated US Rep. Clarke in a press release issued first to Atlanta Progressive News.

"H.Res. 333 was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio on April 24, 2007, and asserts that the vice president manipulated intelligence to make the case for going to war with Iraq, falsified a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and has threatened aggression against Iran," US Rep. Clarke says.

"When the American people voted on November 7th, they asked for a change in direction by electing the Democratic party in the House and Senate. I have heard the loud cries of my constituents, and they want accountability. My support of HRes 333 reflects the voices of the residents of central Brooklyn."

Congresswoman Clarke replaced US Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), who retired at the end of the 109th Session. US Rep. Owens had been one of the early supporters of Conyers's bill, H Res 635, which would have created a Select Committee to look into the possible grounds for impeaching President Bush.

Congresswoman Clarke is her own woman and "does not follow the crowd," her spokesperson said, adding that constituents had regularly lobbied her to co-sponsor this bill.

"Vice President Dick Cheney is the architect of the Administration's deception about the war. Cheney persistently and deliberately deceived the Congress and the American people about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the attack on September 11th. There should be a serious dialogue about the conduct of this Administration. Cheney should be held accountable for purposely misleading the American people. Despite the obvious lack of success on the ground, Vice President Cheney continued a barrage of propaganda claiming that we were winning the war and successfully rebuilding Iraq which is patently false. His statements and representations about the situation in Iraq amount to malfeasance for which he should be taken to task," said Wynn in a press release prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 10:33 AM

Conyers: a Hero of the Constitution
Friday, June 08, 2007

From here.

When it comes to defending the Constitution from the saboteurs of freedom and democracy in the Bush administration, my hero is Conyers.

Not Congressman Conyers. He had a shot at the title during 2005, when he was holding informal hearings on the administration's impeachable crimes, and in 2006, when he published a book laying out the case for impeachment, but he lost his chance when he buckled under pressure from then minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who about a year ago began insisting that should the Democrats take over Congress, impeachment would be "off the table."

Rep. Conyers, who as chairman of the judiciary committee of the House would be in charge of impeachment hearings, has made it clear that he believes the president should be impeached, but he has not stood up to Speaker Pelosi, or challenged her absurd position on impeachment.

No, I'm referring to Conyers' wife, Monica.

As president pro tempore of the Detroit City Council and a political leader in her own right, Monica Conyers clearly isn't swayed by Pelosi. Indeed, last week she sponsored a resolution in the Detroit City Council which passed unanimously. That resolution doesn't mince words. It calls for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney for defrauding the public to justify launching a war of aggression against Iraq. It also calls for their impeachment for ordering illegal spying on Americans, for ordering torture, and for doing away with habeas corpus.

Here is the full text of the resolution, which was drawn up by the Detroit chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, and which was endorsed by the Gray Panthers, Veterans for Peace, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Latinos Unidos and Michigan Impeach.org:


"WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, 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 City of Detroit and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."


The city council resolution is to be presented to Congress as a petition. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:24 PM

It is amusng that not only left-wing nuts and moderate liberals are beginning to insist Bush and Cheny should be impeached for their offenses. Now the nutso right-wing is chiming in!

"Immigration: Time To Impeach GW Bush
By Basil Harrington
Jun 7, 2007 - 2:04:06 PM
Peter Gadiel, the father of a 9/11 victim, and lifelong Republican, has recently said that it is time to impeach GW Bush over immigration. He writes, "Today, it is time for Republicans in the House to rise above the precedent set by Democrats in the Clinton era, and to begin the process of removing the president. As soon as House Republicans face this fact, the sooner a new Barry Goldwater can wake up George W. Bush to the fact that he has failed and it's time to go back to Crawford for good." 1

Bush has neglected his duties as President of the United States. He is flooding the U.S. with cheap labor to drive down American wages and is siding with third-world invaders against his fellow countrymen. And like the neocons, he wants to spend billions of U.S. dollars to defend the borders of Iraq and Israel, and to deport illegal aliens from Iraq and Israel, but at the same time supports the third-world, open-borders invasion of the U.S.

Why won't conservatives impeach him? Some worry about Nancy Pelosi getting closer to the White House, should Cheney be removed, saying that she'll be even worse. Could she be? I cannot stomach Nancy Pelosi, but I doubt she could be worse than Bush, a man who is one of the worst presidents in American history.

As Jean Raspail says in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest conservative book of all time," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place. And if we do not repel these invaders, it will be the end of Western Civilization. We are witnessing the twilight of our civilization, and we must be firm. We can rise up and route the invading third-world hordes, or we can watch the West become a third-world wasteland.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders have sided with the third-world invaders against the U.S., and should be should be ostracized along with Bush: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, CEO of Wal-Mart, Members of La Raza, Bill Gates, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rudolph Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, "Crackhead" Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Michael Chertoff, and so on. These people are the fifth columnists aiding in this invasion."

From the Millinockey, Maine Magic City Morning STar at http://www.magic-city-news.com/Guest_Column_89/Immigration_Time_To_Impeach_GW_Bush8129.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 11:43 PM

DETROIT -- Recently elected Detroit city councilwoman Monica Conyers is accused of assaulting another woman at a bar.

The brawl occurred at Crossroads Lounge Monday night, according to Local 4.

"A drunken woman attacked a judge and then turned and attacked -- a few minutes later -- Councilwoman Conyers. Councilwoman Conyers defended herself," said Sam Riddle, Conyers' chief of staff.

Rebecca Mews, the woman who claims she was assaulted by Conyers, said, "I was in no way intoxicated."

Mews said she was irritated. She was attending a birthday party for herself and her date, a local attorney who is friends with both Conyers and Judge Debra Thomas.

Mews said she didn't appreciate how Thomas was dancing with her date, and cut in on their dance.

According to Mews, that is when the dispute started. When she sat down with her date, she said Conyers approached her and stood with her back to Mews, speaking to her date.

"I tapped her on the shoulder, and said 'Pardon Me,'" said Mews.

Mews said Conyers then turned around and started to yell.

"She commented that they had a 25-year friendship, and who am I?" said Mews.

Mews said she yelled back, and Conyers punched her in the left eye several times.

Mews fell to the floor, and a fight ensued, Local 4 reported. Others also started to throw punches, the station reported.

"I never struck her. Never once did I hit her. Her staff had to restrain her twice," said Mews.

Mews said she wants Conyers to be charged with assault.

Conyers' representatives said the councilwoman does not want special treatment in this case. She wants police to investigate this as though she is a citizen.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5626278/detail.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 08:21 PM

And even the Christian right is beginning to suspect Bush may be up o no good:

"June 10, 2007 at 10:10:34
Stop WW III with HR 333

by Carol Wolman    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





It's clear by now- the warmongers are pushing ahead, and the peacemakers have a tough job to prevent WW III.

The strategy of the peacemakers in Congress, those who really want out of Iraq and no attack on Iran, is to expose Bush administration wrongdoings via oversight hearings and investigations. This is somewhat successful, gets media attention, distracts the Bushies and rattles them. But it's too slow.


Meanwhile, Congress funds Iraq and gives permission to attack Iran without even being asked. Bush fires the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, who is on record as saying that the military opposes an attack on Iran. This removes a key block to WW III.

Cheney is reportedly the main force behind the push to nuke Iran. In the last Republican candidate debate, 8/9 candidates favored nuking Iran. It's become the Republican party line.

Time is of the essence. This madness needs to be stopped quickly.

There is a way.

HR 333 calls for the impeachment of Cheney, on the grounds that he lied us into Iraq, and is now doing his best to lie us into Iran. It's short and to the point.

Introduced in April 2007 by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the bill now has 7 cosponsors. Three signed on last week, including the cochairs of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, both Democrats from the Bay Area.

Call your Representative, of whatever party, and urge him to stop WW III by impeaching Cheney. The Capitol switchboard # is 202-224-3121. Tell your Rep to cosponsor HR 333.

If we flood the House with calls for Cheney's impeachment, they'll have to pay attention. Tell them that Cheney wants to start WW III. Even corrupt Representatives will see the wisdom in removing him from office ASAP.

Be hysterical. Life on planet earth may be at stake. Tell your friends and relatives to call. Send this to your elist.

Don't buy into the evil rapture cult. They're providing heretical, satanic theology to justify a nuclear armageddon. They're attempting to mislead us to destruction.

The true rapture is about bringing God's kingdom- of love, truth, justice, mercy, peace- to earth. It's not about going off with Jesus on a mushroom cloud. They tell us we'll be "left behind" to demoralize and paralyze us. It's demonic, the opposite of the love that Jesus teaches. Don't buy it.

Deut 30: 19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants."

Call your Congressperson and tell them God wants us to choose life, and beg him/her to cosponsor HR 333, to impeach Cheney.

Once Cheney's gone, it'll be easier to impeach Bush and get some sanity back into government."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:25 PM

A letter to the editor — 6/11/2007 10:37 am

Dear Editor: Thanks to all of you at The Capital Times for the positions you have taken regarding the need to use the impeachment option. The piece by John Nichols ("Gonzales deserves impeachment," May 29) further emphasizes this need.

It is obvious there is no constitutional reason for not impeaching President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales. There are many constitutional reasons for impeaching them. Those who fail to recommend impeachment proceedings ignore or defy the validity of the Constitution of the United States.

Eugene S. Farley, MD, Verona

(From Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 03:47 PM

And from the Napa Valley region:

"Calistoga group wants Bush impeached
By JOHN WATERS Jr.
For the Register
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

A group of Calistoga residents are drumming up support for their run at a possible impeachment of President Bush.

Calling themselves the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, they started up after hearing former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega at a forum in Healdsburg earlier this year.

"We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country," said Nick Triglia

Triglia, along with poet J. Kirk Feuereisen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marrone urged de la Vega to state her case against the Bush administration to the Napa Valley public.

Vega will speak at the Community Presbyterian Church in Calistoga at 7 p.m. Monday, June 18. The church is located at the corner of Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her book, "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega — former branch chief of the San Jose U.S. Attorney's Office — claims President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell conspired to defraud or trick the country into a war in Iraq.

"Most people already have their opinions about the president and his administration. They have their thoughts on impeachment," Triglia said. "This is not about a man's sexual misconduct and then lying to cover it up. Instead it's about the government's lying that led to war, and illegally spying on average Americans."

People who support Bush and the current regime will likely continue to do so, Triglia said, and those who oppose them will continue as well.

"But we believe by attending this meeting, they'll be more educated in their support, either way," said Triglia. "We want to educate, not agitate."

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The ImpeachBush.org Web site, for example claims to have collected 897,673 signatures as of this month on a petition to impeach Bush. While groups like MoveOn.org formed to oppose the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton, none have arguably been formed to oppose similar action against Bush.

In January, more than 1,000 people gathered in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district of Ocean Beach in San Francisco, to spell out the message "IMPEACH!" in the sand, although Pelosi has publicly stated she does not support a push for impeachment.

"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 04:49 PM

Things Your Media Mama Didn't Tell You
Dave Lindorff

The fact that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and want the president impeached, is testimony to the native intelligence and common sense of the citizens of this nation.

It sure isn't thanks to the quality of the news we're getting here in America!

Here are ten of the things you don't know if you just depend on the corporate media for your information:

1. Most Americans would like to see this president and vice president impeached and removed from office. Newsweek magazine published a scientific poll last October showing that 51 percent of us favor impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), but the corporate media, which normally haven't met a poll they won't publish, didn't publicize this one. And now, when the numbers supporting impeachment are surely even higher, you can't even pay a polling outfit to ask the question. No wonder most people who favor impeachment still think they're odd ducks.

2. There is a bill, filed in the House of Representatives on April 24 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Since it was filed, it has gained six co-sponsors, including a member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Janice Shakowsky (D-IL). Most major media have ignored this important story completely. Most Americans also don't know that the Vermont State Senate voted overwhelmingly this spring to call on Congress to impeach the president.

3. The president has been declared a felon in federal court. Yet even after Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last August that President Bush and the National Security Agency were committing serial Class A felonies and were violating both the First and Fourth Amendments by spying on Americans' communications without first obtaining warrants, Bush continued ordering the NSA to continue the patently illegal program for at least half a year. In reports on the spying program, the corporate media never mention that it has been declared a felonious activity by the federal court.

4. Fifteen Democratic state party organizations have passed impeachment resolutions calling on Democrats in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president. The most recent of these, the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, passed its resolution at the party's annual convention on May 19. Other Democratic Party conventions, in states from Nevada and California to Massachusetts and North Carolina, have passed similar resolutions. Most have been ignored by the corporate media even in their own states.

5. Bush's so-called "coalition of the willing" is not so willing and is not really much of a coalition either. When's the last time you've heard how many countries are on board with the US in the war and occupation of Iraq? The reality? Britain, the only significant contributor of combat troops besides the U.S., is pulling out, as Italy and Spain did earlier, and many other countries, like Denmark, Lithuania and others, plan to be out of Iraq by August or at the latest December. One indication of the seriousness of situation: the Pentagon no longer lists the countries that are members of the "coalition." The only mainstream report I've seen laying out this collapse in international support for Bush's war was in USA Today last February.

(Balance of article can be found here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 11:54 PM

June 12, 2007 at 16:22:03
Overwhelming Vote for Impeachment in Princeton

by Mary Ellen Marino    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com



Close to 100 people attended a panel by experts on impeachment June 10 where members of the Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO) voted overwhelmingly for a resolution of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. The vote was 31-13. Organized by the PCDO's Impeachment Task Force, the regular meeting of the PCDO was swelled by many other concerned area residents.


David Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment" with Barbara Olshanski, Esq. argued, "The Constitution is at risk and that the primary offenses have no need for further investigation since they are publicly admitted. Thus, Congress could vote immediately to impeach the President for these offenses."



1. The President has stated that he does not have to enforce laws passed by Congress in 100's of signing statements. Bush's statements are contrary to the Constitution which provides that Congress enacts laws and the Executive enforces them.

2. The Bush Administration wiretapped and monitored American citizens on the Internet in violation of the FISA ACT, enacted in 1978 after Nixon was impeached for wiretapping. A Federal Judge in Michigan in July 2006 ruled that President Bush was committing a Class A felony and violating the Bill of Rights by wiretapping American citizens without a warrant.

3. Torture was authorized by the President despite warning by the Attorney General that this is a serious crime, actually a capital offense, under US and international law. He cited evidence that at least 100 people have died under US torture. This policy has led to serious international repercussions and the fact that enemy combatants will not surrender, as they did in other wars where they knew they would be treated humanely.

Rob Kall, publisher of OpEdNews.com, noted that the current Kucinich bill to impeach Cheney first is similar to the forced resignation of Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew. He said that was the beginning of the end, which is starting now as "Republicans will go to the White House and tell them to go." He discussed the role of the media in distorting the news and recommended Keith Olbermann on MSNBC as one of the few media truth-tellers.

Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at NYU and author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform asserted that Bush has never actually been elected, since his book cites proof of massive fraud in the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2006. "If we take our laws seriously, we must impeach." Miller says that the Attorney General scandal is further proof the Bush administration's effort to subvert democracy. "If we believe in America and its radical democratic experiment, we have no choice, impeachment is a patriotic obligation." Miller reassured the audience that Bush is the most unpopular President ever and that the media are a "cartel" of five companies, not a reflection of the American people.


Miller argued that the Administration is not conservative but radical and "fundamentally hostile to American democracy. They don't believe in government, fiscal prudence, or separation of powers, they favor corporate welfare and want to destroy the separation of church and state". Bush, himself, says, "God speaks through me" and shares fanatic Christian beliefs about invading Iran for Biblical reasons. Rather than improving national security, Miller said that the Administration did nothing when repeatedly warned about 9/11, Katrina, Iraq's chaos after our takeover, that the war would create more terrorism.


When questioned about the practicality of impeachment, Lindorff explained that "The Founding Fathers wanted it to be easy to impeach in the House, in order to strongly condemn actions. But they made removal from office more difficult. He also noted for those concerned about the effects on the 2008 election, "Democrats made out like bandits on Nixon. Despite his winning by a landslide in 1972, he lost by impeachment hearings beginning May 1973 that gripped the country, and resulted in his resignation in August 1974." He also stressed that Democrats make sure that impeachment becomes a bipartisan effort, which has already started as Republicans are turning against Bush and Cheney.
...

(Rest of article can be read here)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 11:57 PM

Former Senate Intel Chairman Graham: The Case For Impeachment 'Is Even More Truthful Today'
Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 Senators to have voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. "With sadness," he told his colleagues, "I predict we will live to regret this day, Oct. 10, 2002, the day we stood by and we allowed these terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows."

Just four months after Bush launched the Iraq war, Graham floated the idea of impeachment. "Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty," he said. In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Graham said he stood by his 2003 statement:

How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.

Graham added that it's unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an "incendiary word" that Americans shy away from. "Americans don't like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known." But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment "was a truthful statement at the time and it's even more truthful today."...


(The interview can be heard on this page.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 11:39 AM

Education is goal of group pushing for president's impeachment


By John Waters Jr.
FOR THE STAR
Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:20 AM PDT

Inspired by speakers at a Healdsburg impeachment forum early this year, a group of Calistogans have formed the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, hoping to raise awareness of the alleged abuses of the current White House administration — and possibly make a case for the president's impeachment.

"We were inspired by the speakers — especially Elizabeth de la Vega — at that event," said Nick Triglia. "We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country."

Triglia, along with local poet Kirk Fierensen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marron — all coalition charter members — urged author and former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega to state her case against the present Bush administration to the public in the Napa Valley.

Vega will speak at 7 p.m. Monday at the Community Presbyterian Church, Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her best-selling book, the "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega brings 21 years of experience to bear on what some critics have called "the most important case of her career." The defendants are President George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Their crime, she alleges, is conspiracy to defraud the United States, or, tricking the nation into war.

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. ImpeachBush.org Web site, for example, claims to have collected 897,673 signatures (as of June 5) on a petition to impeach Bush.
...
(From the St. Helena Star)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:56 AM

Orange North Confidential: Middletown council votes to impeach
June 17, 2007

President Bush and Vice President Cheney be warned, the Common Council of the City of Middletown has hereby resolved to ask some other elected officials to investigate you.
The council passed a resolution last week titled "Middletown Resolution to Investigate Charges of Impeachable Offenses Against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney." There are nine paragraphs that detail various offenses.

For example, "Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney admitted to ordering NSA electronic surveillance of American citizens without warrants from the FISA Court of Review..."

This set off a chain of events: paper was torn, words exchanged. An alderman was disgusted, others not so much. Then everybody voted.

It passed 5-2. Aldermen John VanderVoort, R-2nd Ward, and Ray Depew, R-3rd Ward, voted against it; Aldermen Joel Sierra, D-4th Ward, and Thomas Burr, R-1st Ward, were absent.

"I cannot believe we've gotten to this point," Depew said before the vote. "I'm disgusted to be an alderman tonight." He then ripped his copy of the resolution in two.
Copies of the resolution will now go to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, state Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, D-C-Forestburgh, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:58 AM

Calistoga group wants Bush impeached
By JOHN WATERS Jr.
For the Register
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A group of Calistoga residents are drumming up support for their run at a possible impeachment of President Bush.

Calling themselves the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, they started up after hearing former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega at a forum in Healdsburg earlier this year.

"We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country," said Nick Triglia

Triglia, along with poet J. Kirk Feuereisen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marrone urged de la Vega to state her case against the Bush administration to the Napa Valley public.

Vega will speak at the Community Presbyterian Church in Calistoga at 7 p.m. Monday, June 18. The church is located at the corner of Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her book, "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega — former branch chief of the San Jose U.S. Attorney's Office — claims President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell conspired to defraud or trick the country into a war in Iraq.

"Most people already have their opinions about the president and his administration. They have their thoughts on impeachment," Triglia said. "This is not about a man's sexual misconduct and then lying to cover it up. Instead it's about the government's lying that led to war, and illegally spying on average Americans."

People who support Bush and the current regime will likely continue to do so, Triglia said, and those who oppose them will continue as well.

"But we believe by attending this meeting, they'll be more educated in their support, either way," said Triglia. "We want to educate, not agitate."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:12 PM

June 17, 2007 at 14:28:44

The duty of Christians to impeach Bush and Cheney

by Carol Wolman   
From OpEd News


Christians have a duty to denounce Bush for his crimes, and see that he and Cheney are impeached.
A recent news story says "Southern Baptists split over politics". They are arguing about whether or not to be involved in the political process. How hypocritical!
Christians, especially evangelicals, helped put Bush into power. They believed Pat Robertson, who "anointed" him to lead America. They thought he would bring about God's kingdom on earth.
Now they don't like what he has done, so they want to retreat from politics. Sour grapes.

Luke 6:44 " For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
The evangelical Christians who helped put Bush in power are accessories to his many crimes. They should confess their error and repent.
The "fruit" of Bush's presidency is poisonous. Two illegal invasions and occupations, based on lies. Massive transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, including Bush and Cheney. Corruption, incompetence, sex and money scandals galore- a briar bush indeed for those who put their hopes in a "Christian" president.
Bush has broken many international treaties, which are the supreme law of the land- the Geneva conventions, the Nuremberg principles, laws against napalm and cluster bombs, etc.
And shredded the US Constitution, which says that "We the People" are sovereign, the source of authority, and the president is a public servant. Bush seeks to restore the monarchy cast off during the American Revolution.
Bush has overruled laws passed by Congress with his signing statements, broken the wiretapping laws, subverted the judicial process.
What is happening here is described in 2Thess 2: 3-12:
3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the Kingdom of God) will not come unless the apostasy (Bush's presidency) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

---

From The Huffington Post:

Impeachment is the Necessary Next Step for Gonzales

      
Last week, Common Cause called on the House Judiciary Committee to start impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for demonstrating reckless disregard for the obligations of his office.

That cannot happen fast enough.

Each day seems to bring new revelations that further darken the cloud over Gonzales and his Justice Department, including that the Justice Department is investigating whether Gonzales sought to improperly influence the congressional testimony of his former aide, Monica Goodling, who acknowledged that she had "crossed the line," when she used political criteria in the selection of non-political positions within the Justice Department. The Los Angeles Times reports that the fallout can now be felt in federal courtrooms, where defense lawyers are raising questions about the motives of government lawyers prosecuting their clients.

What we know so far about the firings of the nine US attorneys and the fallout is a result of the hard work of the House Judiciary Committee and its determined efforts to expose the truth through congressional hearings.

But the committee needs to take the next step.

To date, the president and Attorney General Gonzales have refused to allow senior officials to testify under oath about any role they may have played in the firings or to provide important documentation on the issue.

The congressional impeachment process is specifically designed to protect the public from misfeasance by public officials. Given the stonewalling and recalcitrance of the administration over the attorney general's conduct, impeachment appears to be the only vehicle for vindicating the public's interest in having an attorney general who is free of conflicts of interest and who enforces the nation's laws in a fair and nonpartisan manner.

This episode is a blow to the integrity and credibility of our criminal justice system. And it comes at a time of corrosive public cynicism and distrust of government that has been fueled by recent political scandals. A failure to investigate and disclose to the American people will only exacerbate those feelings.

Our attorney general and our U.S. Attorneys have a long history of non-partisanship and of enforcing the nation's laws in a fair manner. That reputation has been tarnished and must be restored. Only through impeachment proceedings will the American public know the full truth about the role that the attorney general and the White House played in this episode.

---

Impeachment FAQ
Monday, 18 June 2007, 1:54 pm
Column: David Swanson
Impeachment FAQ

From The Impeachment FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions About Impeachment-

Why would we want a President Cheney? Or why would we want a new Republican who could run as an incumbent? Or why would we want a President Pelosi?
We propose impeaching Cheney first or together with Bush. The first Articles of Impeachment to be introduced (H Res 333) are addressed only to Cheney. Impeaching Cheney first ought to put the fear of a President Cheney to rest. But there remains the possibility of fearing his replacement or even of not wanting Nancy Pelosi to be president or not wanting her to become president in this way. She won't. We will never succeed in removing Bush and Cheney from office simultaneously and by surprise. We will remove them, but they will be replaced by a new President Ford, who will operate within the rule of law and lose the next election.

But this whole discussion misses the point. The question of who holds which office for the next year or six months, as well as the question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do far more serious damage than Bush and Cheney have done.

So, if we keep this in perspective, the fear of Cheney appears trivial. It appears even more so when we consider that impeachment and removal from office are two separate steps and that we're only working on the first one so far, and when we recognize the extent to which Cheney has been running the country already for years. Were Cheney officially president, most policies would remain unchanged, but the public face of the White House and of the Republican party would be that of a man whose approval rating has been unable to top 20 percent. The Republicans will never allow this, so it would be rather foolish for the Democrats to retreat out of fear of it. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 01:14 AM

600 Up!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 11:33 AM

June 19, 2007

Impeach and Convict Bush and Cheney for High Treason

Len Hart

It is an extraordinary subversion of the [US] Constitution to send people to die...on the basis of a lie.
- Elizabeth Holtzman, Rep., NY

I can't improve on that. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the gang subverted the Constitution to carry out a war of naked aggression, itself a war crime, and, under US Criminal Codes punishable by death. But it's worse than that. It is an aggravated crime as Rep Elizabeth Holtzman makes abundantly clear.

This is a case of high treason. Treason is defined as a betrayal of one's sovereign. In time's past "sovereignty" was most often embodied in a person, a monarch, a king or queen. Louis XIV summed up the very concept succinctly: L'État, c'est moi! The various plotters against the life of Elizabeth I were accused of treason.

But what of a democratic, constitutional Democracy. In the US sovereignty resides with the people themselves, a principle established up front by the founders:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-Preamble, US Constitution

Bush and Cheney have betrayed their "sovereign" by hoaxing the sovereign, lying to the sovereign, and, at last, betraying the sovereign by leading US troops into harm's way upon a pack of malicious lies. Lies known by Bush and Cheney to have been lies at the time the lies were told. In Elizabethan times, that would have gotten your head cut off.
The Impeachment of George W. Bush
Elizabeth Holtzman

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office.<

As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.<

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
And, again, about a year later:
Impeachment: The Case in Favor
Elizabeth Holtzman

Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush's prior claims that it could not were untrue.<

Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton's impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush's constitutional misconduct. <

Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President's poll numbers continue to drop.

These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table." (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn't mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act.

This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not "on the table" for many months while President Nixon's cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again.

Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public's angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor--and the House response with impeachment proceedings--virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it--and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President's deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous questions about Richard Nixon: "What did the President know and when did he know it?") Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President's role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina.

Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney's meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney's ties to the company.

White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President's failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans.

Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.

Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, "Absolutely, we are winning" the war in Iraq--a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.

There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:42 AM

Assorted "Ten Reasons to Impeach" lists from Buzzflash readers:

Anyone who had doubts that the American Government was hijacked by Cheney and Bush in 2000, now should have no doubts.

The revelations of the past few months have conclusively revealed that we are dealing with a rogue, runaway government. They feel that they own the United States governmental apparatus, that the rule of law does not apply to them, and that the Constitution is irrelevant.

If Congress continues to play it cautious with the White House, they will, in essence, be giving every American carte blanche permission to break the law, because the President and Vice President of the United States are role models for criminal behavior.

We are asking BuzzFlash Readers to share their top ten reasons for Cheney and Bush being impeached.

As with David Letterman, work from the tenth reason down to the strongest, number one.

Send around to others for their top ten reasons for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush now.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis impeach top ten
» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Send to friend
Top Ten Reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney
Submitted by Chrisdutch on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 11:27pm.
10. The Government can save money by closing both Gitmo AND Cheney's undisclosed location.
9. Bush can move to Germany and take a job as Angela Merkel's masseuse.
8. The Twins can pinch hit for Paris and Hilton can stay in prison longer.
7. Let Laura wait on line like everybody else for her packs of Lucky Strikes.
6. Bush can take more time practicing on his Segway.
5. Cheney can finally find those "other priorities" he misplaced during the Vietnam War.
4. What the hell...gas is up to $3.00 or more a gallon...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
3. The Chinese have run out room in their vaults for American dollars.
2. Bush really has a lot of work to do finding a college that does want his library.
BUT THE NUMBER ONE REASON BUSH AND CHENEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED...

1. Land in Paraguay is getting more expensive by the minute.

» login or register to post comments
Top 10 Reasons to Impeach Bush/Cheney
Submitted by oneeggcream on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 9:49pm.
#10>When I hear Cheney speak I think I'm listening to the Penguin from Batman!
#9>The things that come out of Bush's mouth is like nails on a chalk board!
#8>Poverty has increased by at least 1.3 [I'm sure it's much higher] million people since Bush is in office!
#7>Citizens without health care has increased by 2 million since he's in office!
#6>Salaries remain flat while oil companies and pharmaceutical companies rake in the Big Bucks!
#5>Taxpayers cost to date for the illegal and immoral bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq, $437,204,566,999 and ALWAYS rising!
#4>The hole in the ground in lower Manhattan!
#3>American Military Deaths in Iraq since war began total to date 3,555, in combat 2,941!
#2>He wasn't elected he was selected!!!
#1>Lying to the American people each and every day of their lives!!!!!!!

Peace to you and yours...

» login or register to post comments
I was thinking the other way around....
Submitted by populist on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 9:00pm.
Every single day these people are violating the Constitution in one way or another. Virtually everything they do is in violation of the Constitution as well.

There's so many reasons to impeach that it's hard to come up with a top ten.

So, instead, I tried thinking of a reason any reason that we should allow them to stay in office.

I can think of none.

We need to get our politician to follow the law that governs the government.....some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

» login or register to post comments
Impeach
Submitted by Cliff Wiseman on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 8:45pm.
Some reason Chaney and Bush should be impeached:

1.        Liars
2.        Hypocrites
3.        War Mongers
4.        Self Righteous
5.        Robbers
6.        Let Huge Debt For Children
7.        Borrowed From China
8.        Turned Respect for U.S. to Negative
9.        Law Breakers
10.        Disuniters
11.        Do Not Listen to Generals
12.        Impeders of Good Progress

Cliff

» login or register to post comments
cheney and bush
Submitted by 11messiah on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 7:53pm.
every time either of them open their mouths there is treason being committed. I think it would be so difficult to find the last time either of them spoke a word of truth about our government.

» login or register to post comments
Top 10
Submitted by TFYQA on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 7:36pm.
1 # Dying Regime Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-316522221891913371&hl=en
2 # Be Careful What You Say 2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7614841975549948776
3 # Lynching by Laptop Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=29166033447680735&q=Lynching+by+Laptop
4 # BLACKWATER : THE SHADOW WAR
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3589824849379942402
5 # Dying Regime
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=378229989470389403&q=Dying+Regime
6 # Be Careful What You Say
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=98845005530349156&hl=en
7 # Lynching by Laptop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjUYbmFXZ0Y
8 # War Corporatism: The New Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxz1jbPCfTQ
9 # Greg Palast Reports: BBC NewsNight- Vulture Funds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbxj8azQb80
10 # Margo Guryan/"16 Words"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7soN6HNU3Y

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:42 AM

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Impeach Bush
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 06/22/2007 10:29:28 PM MDT

Since the president has ignored the people and insists on amnesty (for undocumented immigrants), which about 80 percent of the citizens do not want, it is time for his impeachment.
    He is also ignoring the law and our safety standards by allowing unsafe Mexican trucks with Mexican drivers who do not speak the English language to drive on our highways. Soon all American trucking will feel the need for Mexican licensing on their trucks so they can compete in our land and not be arrested for violating American standards.
    It is time to get rid of Bush before he thinks up other ways to damage our beloved nation. Ask your congressman to start impeachment proceedings now.
   
    Paul Hull
    Spanish Fork "


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:09 AM

Still no impeachment then Amos? How come?

Mind you I did like the xenophobic rant from some prized prat living in - where was it - Oh Yes - Spanish Fork.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:28 PM

The Vices of Cheney: Where Impeachment Must Begin

For several years, in my discussions with Representatives and Senators, it has not been unusual to hear Vice President Dick Cheney referred to as President George Bush's "insurance policy." That is, against the beginning of impeachment proceedings in the House. The prevailing assumption has been that it would be necessary to impeach and convict Cheney, first, so as not to leave the government in his hands should the President leave office before the end of his term. This assumption was, and is correct--not just due to the fact that the route to holding the President ultimately accountable for "high crimes" goes through Cheney but also because the Vice President's "high crimes" are probably much greater.

Email
Print
Comment
If the Democrats had gained control of Congress in 2005, the impeachment of Cheney might have happened. But in the summer of 2007, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have an "out" in that the prevailing political judgment among the majority is that the timing is too close to 2008 to begin such a prolonged and disruptive proceeding.

Thus, as a senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee recently argued to me, "we are holding what otherwise would be impeachment hearings under the heading of oversight" and
publicly "embarrassing" the Bush-Cheney White House. He went on to say that his colleagues (Republicans, as well as Democrats) on that committee--where the impeachment process must start--often discuss the abundant circumstantial evidence for high crimes having been committed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

Of course, it would not be so convenient for Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic majority to finesse the constitutional scandal IF special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald--in the trial of Scooter Libby--had prominently cited, instead of hinting at, the Vice President as an unindicted co-conspirator in obstructing justice OR even in committing the original crime of intentionally revealing the identity of a known CIA covert agent. The ball of string might have unwound beyond control, to the point where Chairman John Conyers of the Judiciary Committee could not have shirked from the duty to launch certified impeachment hearings. The "I" word would at least have been on the table.

Alas, the series that began in The Washington Post on June 24--" Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency "--should result in placing it firmly on the agenda of the House. Consider this excerpt from Bart Gellman and Jo Becker's long-overdue exposure of the modus operandi of the sitting Vice President:


"Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes
to 'sensitive compartmented information,' the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words 'treated as,' they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause 'exceptionally grave damage to national security.'

"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

"In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down."


I submit that only a bunch of Congressional fools, who read The Post and The Times and McClatchy wire stories, could have failed over time to notice that the Vice President has been, and still is, systematically destroying the evidence--the paper and electronic trails--that document his impeachable offenses. That is, dangerous acts that are high crimes against the State and that subvert the Constitution of the United States. And, moreover, that could be used as evidence, after he is removed or leaves office, when he shall "nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." [Article I, Section 3]

There is a compelling and overriding national interest, if for no other reason than the above, in NOT releasing from a jail sentence, and not excusing with a presidential pardon, live witness Scooter Libby--the former chief of staff to the Vice President known as "Cheney's Cheney."

The subversion of the Republic continues, before our very eyes. What is the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Conyers prepared to do about it?!

These are very grave matters. It does not take much imagination to draw up articles of impeachment against the Vice President of the United States. And let poltical considerations of timing be damned!

William E. Jackson, Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 03:23 PM

Impeachment - Now More Than Ever

It's been 7 months since Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table". We've heard all the Republican talking points adopted by the corporatists wing of the Democratic Party (DLC): "we don't want to put the country through an impeachment proceeding", "Bush is almost out of office so what's the point?", "Impeach Bush, then we get stuck with Cheney". These talking points put out by Republicans have somehow become the platform of the Democratic Party.

There seems to be this pervasive mindset in the leadership of the Democratic Party that somehow impeachment is a dirty word. And no, we won't get "stuck" with Cheney, he needs to be impeached too. In fact to a certain degree, Kucinich may be right in going after Cheney first.

Our country cannot suffer another minute with the Bush Cheney rogue nation. It's not too late to impeach Bush and Cheney. It will never be too late. Ten years after they leave office it STILL will not be too late. They need to be made an example out of so that future Presidents do not try to assert absolute power. If we do nothing, we are telling future Presidents that they are basically dictators who can do as they please.

Look at the amount of damage Bush and Cheney have done just over the last 7 months let alone the next year and a half. Every minute we wait is a minute we move closer to a dictatorship.

We now have a situation where both Bush and Cheney are asserting some make believe right over official documents that the public and our government have a right to. They're classifying documents that were previously unclassified, unclassifying documents that can hurt their political enemies, shredding documents that implement them in vote caging, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, and fabircated prewar intelligence.

Bush and Cheney are sitting on a mountain of paper that all points back to them. From Cheney's "energy task force" that devised the invasion of Iraq to Bush's nonchalent attitude over the Presidential Daily Briefings prior to 9/11 titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S. August 6, 2001, they can't classify and shred documents fast enough.
...

(Excerpted from http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1518