BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Susan A-R
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM

I love my state, and nobody even asked me in that Vermont poll.

I have heard an interesting rumor, from a somewhat reliable source, that if impeachment procedings are underway and our fine president (cough, choke) decided to invade Iran, there are generals in the military who would not follow those orders. They'd follow them if procedings weren't under way though. Interesting. It would sound to me like some weird conspiracy, but it comes from a person I know and trust who is pretty involved in peace building.


One more good reason to impeach, as if we didn't have enough of 'em already.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 04:03 PM

A few current pieces on the impeachment question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:36 AM

"Hallelujah! The evil Kucinich-Republican impeachment alliance was defeated by the noble forces of Democratic liberalism, whose "major priorities" right now do not include defending the United States Constitution against the abuse of power.

...There are a number of problems with this. I will mention three.

First, there's no point in having the weapon of impeachment on the constitutional books if it can't be wielded against Cheney and Bush. As Glen Ford observed last Spring, "if Cheney-Bush can't be impeached, nobody can.""...

From an impassioned essay in "The Dissident Voice".

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM

From Ulster County, New York:

"In symbolic vote, Ulster lawmakers calls for Bush, Cheney to be impeached
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
11/14/2007

KINGSTON - An Ulster County committee on Tuesday endorsed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but the Democratic members voting in favor said they won't pressure local congressional representatives to take action.

Members of the county Legislature's Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees said the Bush administration has created an atmosphere of fear of the government.

"The President proposed and the Congress passed his military containment act of 2006, which allowed the President to declare anybody to be a illegal combatant, at which point they could be imprisoned without presenting any evidence, without habeas corpus and did not need to be brought to trial until the end of hostilities...which is endless," said Legislator Peter Liepmann, D-New Paltz. "That essentially means that any American citizen could be imprisoned indefinitely without bringing charges, without presenting any evidence, and ... this is a step on the path not to merely controlling the government but to fascism."

The resolution says Bush and Cheney appear to have "violated laws of the United States by numerous acts, including misleading Congress and the public by alleging threats from the nation of Iraq to justify war, the countenance of torture of prisoners, the surveillance of American citizens beyond the reach of judicial review, and arbitrarily subjecting citizens to indefinite detention without charge and denying them their constitutional rights to counsel and judicial relief."

The resolution, if approved by the full county Legislature next month, will be sent to U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Greenport; and John Hall, D-Dover Plains.

The committee vote was 5-1 with Charles Busick, R-Highland, opposed. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:37 PM

ACLU of Southern California: Impeach Bush and Cheney

Do you want to know why it's so tedious sitting next to an ACLU board member at dinner? Well, now you'll know.

Yes, I know this is only the Sothern California branch. And National may not follow. But here is the morally smug and politically idiotic statement issued from the beach.

ACLU of Southern California Calls for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney -- Will National Follow?
ACLU-SC Calls for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

The ACLU of Southern California has called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors arising out of their abuse of power and numerous violations of the Constitution.

The Board of Directors of the ACLU-SC voted on November 14, 2007 without objection (and one abstention) to call on Congress to promptly convene impeachment hearings.

In March, 1971 and again in July, 1973 the ACLU-SC called for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. In September of 1973, the National Board of the ACLU joined the call for impeachment.

The ACLU-SC will shortly release a report detailing the grounds for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 12:40 PM

When's it going to happen Amos?

Are you all worked up because Bush might actually succeed before he is impeached?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 12:47 PM

"Succeed" at what, Homey? I'd love to see some success come out of that cesspool of dismal dark-side power vortices.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 10:04 PM

Yeah. Well I want the Demos to get up off their whiny asses and impeach him too but I ain't all depressed over it like you. So what if the surge might work? Who cares? I got more enjoyable things to do rather than obsess on negative thoughts.

I ain't gong to let dark-side power vortices suck me down.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:40 PM

if Republicans are cleaning up Democrats' mess, they must be using cloths soaked in excrement to wipe up stains.

Bush has succeeded in cowing most Dems, getting his way while trampling on the Constitution.

Kucinich is the only Dem candidate with the temerity to step up to the plate against the
Bush Crime Family.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 11:35 PM

Protesters: Impeach Cheney
Political activists bring message to Port Huron

By BOBBY AMPEZZAN
Times Herald

Several people visiting the Port Huron post office Friday braved the cold and the season's first snowflakes to check out a small booth outside with a big sign that read, "Impeach Cheney."

John Morris, 47, of Livonia, and Judy Clark, 59, of Chicago, manned the stand, passing out information about Lyndon LaRouche, a regular if little-known political figure who is a perennial presidential candidate.

         Friday, they handed out fliers in support of impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, whom LaRouche claims brought on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Another flier — titled "LaRouche warns you again: The dollar system has crashed: Will you now act to save the nation?" — warned the country's financial markets are disintegrating
"I like to talk to people like him," said Dick Megregian, 75, of St. Clair, nodding in Morris' direction, before asking him, "How do you deal with the fact that if you guys lived in Iran you'd be dead by now?"

On the table were several self-published books by LaRouche, fliers, signs, and a manual credit card imprinter. Morris and Clark would not say if they had collected any donations, but they were collecting contact information from people such as Rich Seifferlein, 40, of Port Huron.
"This good lady asked for a minute, and I gave it to her," he said, referring to Clark. "It's not hard. More people need to do it. This is valuable information."

Despite meeting with hostile responses to his message, Morris said he has come to the area several times before for similar campaigns, and he will again.

"I like coming to Port Huron because people are passionate about politics," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:58 AM

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 20, 2007

The siblings Vanessa, Lynn and Corin Redgrave have joined the journalists, military officials, entertainers and academics participating in "A Question of Impeachment," a series of evenings, presented by the Culture Project, exploring the case for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The first event in the series took place yesterday at the Culture Project theater at 55 Mercer Street in SoHo. "The Redgraves: Poems From Guantánamo," which will take place on Dec. 9 at 7:30 p.m., includes recitations from "Guantánamo: The Detainees Speak" (University of Iowa, 2007), a collection of poems written by detainees. Marc Falkoff, a lawyer for some of the detainees and the editor of the collection, will take part in the event. For information: cultureproject.org.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:07 PM

Presently, Guantanamo is the holing cell/home to a 20 yr old kid who 5 yrs ago was captured at the age of 15. He is just now being brought to trial as an adult for war crimes. If he is a soldier, isn't that what soldiers do, kill their enemy? That is what he's being tried for but this isn't what's reasoned as a war crime! I believe the Geneva Convention deals with child soldiers but again we prefere to violate international law. Just another reason in the long list of reasons for impeachment.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 12:25 PM

Saturday, November 24
BRATTLEBORO -- A presidential candidate and a writer for The Nation will be in Hanover, N.H., Monday night to discuss the history of impeachment. They are also hoping to dispel "myths and misinformation" about the process, said Dan DeWalt, of Newfane, a member of the Northeast Impeachment Coalition.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and John Nichols, The Nation's Washington reporter, will be members of a panel discussing impeachment at the Moore Hall-Filene Auditorium on the campus of Dartmouth College.

Other members of the panel include Army veteran Adrienne Kinne, New Hampshire representative Betty Hall, John Kaminski, Chairman of the Maine Lawyers for Democracy and Tim Carpenter, president of Progressive Democrats.

"A growing number of prominent Americans and organizations have been organizing impeachment educational events throughout the country," wrote DeWalt in an e-mail announcing the event.

This type of forum is needed because the media has ignored the issue, said DeWalt, from his home in Newfane.

"The slant given to it by who the media report on is a political one," he said. It's not about politics, said DeWalt. It's about


the U.S. Constitution and how the current administration has abused its powers to wage an illegal war and has ignored the checks and balances of government.
Because the country's elected representatives have refused to consider the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, said DeWalt, it's up to the citizens of the nation to make it happen.

"It should be investigated," said DeWalt. "Impeachment is a likely thing that should happen."

(From the Brattleboro Informer.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

Impeachment: If not now, when?
Lawmakers need to stand up for the Constitution and support impeachment
By LINDA BOYD
GUEST COLUMNIST

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -- Article II, Section 4

On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation's founders were truly represented.

The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table.

In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution.

Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly.

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, "The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration."

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing. ...

From SeattlePI.com.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 12:06 PM

"...Now, Bush and Cheney are much more politically vulnerable to impeachment and criminal prosecution. Also newsworthy is that the mainstream media this time around, at least currently, is mostly treating all this as a non-story, with barely a follow-up mention of McClellan's bombshell and its implications. And I've seen no story in the corporate media that mentions Bush's granting of clemency to Libby as a possible obstruction of justice by someone who stands to benefit by Libby's continued silence.

If a scandal falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it happen?

WE KNOW THEIR THUGGISHNESS

Here's the encouraging truth. The American public, despite all attempts by the rightwing media to distract and distort, long ago became pretty much aware of the worst crimes, and incompetencies, of the CheneyBush Administration.

How can one not be aware of the following high crimes and misdemeanors?

==>their lies to get America into Iraq.

==>rationalizing violations of our privacy without any court approval (warrantless wiretapping, secretly rifling through our computers, our emails).

==>"disappearing" U.S. citizens and throwing them into jails on military bases with no access to lawyers.

==>encouraging torture of prisoners in U.S. care.

==>skirting international law and war-crimes treaties by "rendering" suspects to countries that specialize in extreme torture.

==>canceling the 800-year-old legal tradition of habeas corpus where an arrested person has to be arraigned in court and a judge must decide whether there is enough evidence to take the accused to trial or to let him/her go.

==>enabling corruption by U.S. corporations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amounts to grand larceny of billions from U.S. taxpayers.

==>responding cluelessly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans whereupon more than a thousand citizens died.

And on and on..."

(Excerpted from http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/138

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 10:35 PM

ANOVER, N.H. -- It was a night of impassioned oratory bringing together regional and national leaders of the impeachment movement, ranging from Newfane Selectboard member Dan DeWalt to presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
Though billed as a "teach in" and held at Dartmouth College, impressionable students were far outnumbered by gray-haired veterans of a movement that began in southern Vermont and has since spread throughout New England.

John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation and author of "The Genius of Impeachment," provided the emotional centerpiece of the evening, listing the impeachable offenses he believes President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have committed and quoting the founding fathers' support of the practice.

In writing the Constitution, Nichols said, the founders "made six references to impeachment. It's the message in the bottle. Uncork the bottle. Impeach Dick Cheney and George Bush."

In introducing members of a panel consisting of Kucinich, Nichols and Iraq Veterans Against the War New England coordinator Adrienne Kinne, DeWalt told the audience of 200 that the impeachment movement would field congressional candidates in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Confirming that U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., would be a target of their efforts, DeWalt said that either he or Kinne would challenge the freshman congressman in his 2008 re-election.

"It's not like either one of us is jonesing to go to Congress. But we feel we have an obligation to call attention to a major failing on the part of our representative," DeWalt said after the forum. "If we really believe in this, we have to act on it."

DeWalt said impeachment leaders would settle on a candidate for the race in January or Februrary.

Welch, who has been the target of Vermont impeachment supporters since last spring, received muted support from members of the panel.

Kucinich, who called Welch "a good man with a good sense of his constituency," said Democratic party leaders were putting the squeeze on all members of their caucus -- be they freshmen or committee chairmen -- to vote against impeachment.

Nichols said that while Welch "has not been a leader on impeachment," the congressman is moving in the right direction -- particularly with his vote to support debating the impeachment of Cheney.

"We saw the impact of what the people of Vermont have already done," Nichols said, attributing Welch's vote to the efforts of those in the audience. "The fact of the matter is those 85 members who voted with (Kucinich) already felt the heat."

(From the Brattleboro Refomer.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 02:24 AM

Amos, that's Hanover, NH

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 10:01 AM

Thanks, mate. I didn't notice I'd clipped the lead letter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 01:35 PM

If Impeachment is Out, How About Damnation?

Posted November 30, 2007 | 12:15 PM (EST)


         

As I watched the Republican YouTube Bible Class the other day, with all the candidates contending for the holier than thou vote, all except Rudy, the reformed reprobate, from whom newly revealed sins keep spitting out like quarters from the jackpot of a Vegas slot-machine, I was struck by an idea of theological proportions. Inspired by the sight of all the Republican fat cats pretending that their lives are lived as an imitation of Christ, whose mission in life, as I understand it, was to comfort the sick and the poor and ready the rest of us for the Kingdom of Heaven, these candidates prefer to support the richest and most powerful as they vie with each other to express their contempt for the planet earth, as well as their hatred for the very "aliens," those strangers Christ would have comforted.

A bell rang in my head, no, not quite a bell, more like one of those light-bulbs that go on over the head of a cartoon character like Dagwood in "Blondie" as he comes up with an idea for a new sandwich. The gist of it is that Bush will leave office un-impeached thanks to a timid Democratic leadership and that this is an offense against man and God and the Constitution. So we will have to help God in accomplishing justice, if not on earth, in the hereafter. Thus the "Bush for Damnation" movement which I am starting here and now. Here's my personal rationale for it. ...

(Balance of the explanation for this charming alternative can be found on this page. I like this guy.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 05:57 AM

And yet another month slips past Amos and still no sign of any impeachment proceedings.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 09:23 AM

Mock away, T. Mock away. Decency grinds slow, but exceeding fine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 03:49 AM

No mockery Amos, merely a simple observation and statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 04:30 AM

The impeachment proceedings have begun. Whether or not they continue is the only question.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 02:35 PM

"This is the most arrogant, incompetent administration I've ever seen personally or ever read about." -- Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

DETROIT -- Chuck Hagel, a student of history, can read until the cows come home before he finds any administration as arrogant and incompetent as President George W. Bush's. Hagel's spot-on assessment of Bush's disastrous presidency really should dominate the campaign for his successor.

Whatever the candidates say they would like to do is overshadowed by the monumental mess they will inherit, and Bush still has time to wreak more havoc on the nation and world. Hagel noted it would take the next president at least four years to "dig out from under" the dung heap of the horrible Bush years. Hagel is an optimist.

He made his remarks last week before the Council on Foreign Relations. While expressing confidence that new leadership in the White House can set the nation back on track, the senator lamented Bush's rejection of the opportunity to reach out to a sympathetic world.

"I think this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was in their grasp. Every poll in the world showed 90 percent of the world was with us," Hagel said. "Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America. They squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity."

Bush never misses an opportunity to ramp up fear of Iran, and many Democrats join in the hysteria, as Hillary Clinton did when she voted for a Senate resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Bush and his neoconservative Dr. Strangeloves want to create a trifecta of violence in the Muslim world, adding Iran to their other "success stories" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, predicts Bush is planning to attack Iran in the spring of 2008, before "the crazy political season of the summer." In an interview with Detroit's Metro Times, Ritter explained how Bush's aggression continues unchecked, in spite of the manifest failures in Iraq:

"The Democrats, one would hope, would live up to their rhetoric, that is, challenging the Bush administration's imperial aspirations. Once it became clear Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, one would have thought that when the Democrats took control of Congress, they would have sought to reimpose a system of checks and balances, as the Constitution mandates. But instead the Democrats have put their focus solely on recapturing the White House, and, in doing so, will not do anything that creates a political window for their Republican opponents."

Many Democrats are nervous about being branded weak on terror and the predictable Republican slur that they are defending Iran's wacky president and Holocaust-denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"The Democrats don't want to go up against that," Ritter said. "They don't have the courage of their conviction to enter into that debate."

But Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is showing some resolve and facing off with Bush with a pledge to press for impeachment if the president authorizes a military strike on Iran.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and ... if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman and former chairman of judiciary, I move to impeach him." Biden told a crowd during a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week. Biden got a roar from the crowd, adding, "If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first."

Vice President Dick Cheney had another heart scare last week, but after a hospital visit -- paid for by his government health insurance -- he's reported to be doing just fine. Doctors used an electrical current to correct Cheney's irregular heartbeat. The two-and-a-half-hour procedure won't cost our multi-millionaire vice president a dime. God bless socialized medicine!

Biden got off one of the better lines in the campaign when he described a Rudy Giuliani' stump speech. "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb and 9/11," Biden quipped.

Giuliani scares the hell out of me, and it is stunning how many people think this guy is fit for the presidency, even as we learn more about his megalomania and narcissism that might actually exceed Bush's.

In fact, Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunners, are in a contest to sell themselves as "Uber Bush," like "Shrub on steroids." They fashion themselves as tougher than the impetuous cowpoke whose swagger and arrogance have brought so much suffering to the world. Giuliani and Romney seek to top that record.

Tough guy Giuliani is trying explain how he did everything on the up and up when he was mayor of New York City, and the taxpayers paid tens of thousands of dollars in travel expenses for his security detail while he was shacking up with his mistress at her love nest in Southampton, Long Island. Judith Nathan would later become Mrs. Rudy Giuliani III.

Giuliani whined that the report in "The Politico" an online journal was not true. "Politico" used New York's Freedom of Information law to force the release of the expense reports and American Express records, which Giuliani kept hidden when he was mayor.

The expenses were buried in the budgets of obscure agencies in the city government, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the mayor's police security detail. Just routine accounting, Giuliani wants us to believe.

Anthony V. Carbonetti, one of Giuliani's political advisers, told The New York Times, "These are all legitimate expenses incurred by the NYPD while performing their duty protecting the mayor."

The issue is: Was it legitimate to bury the expenses, and did Giuliani's accounting minions provide him cover and protect the mayor from exposure for sticking the taxpayers with the bill as he performed his extramarital duty?

As loathsome as Giuliani is personally -- more vile revelations are sure to come -- it is his position on the role of the United States in the world that makes him unfit for the presidency.

He is certainly the first candidate for president ever to make violating the Geneva Convention and U.S. War Crimes Act an important plank in his platform.

Former lawman Giuliani wants to throw international law out the window as he embraces water-boarding. Giuliani shrugged off the torture technique recognized as such since the Middle Ages, saying, "It depends how it is done."

He also did what seemed to be impossible, surrounding himself with a team of foreign policy advisers even nuttier than Bush's people. Giuliani has chosen Norman Podhoretz, the columnist and "Godfather of neoconservatism," to head his team as senior foreign policy adviser.

Podhoretz is crazy as an outhouse rat, and his ties to Giuliani tell us all we need to know about the direction we would take in the world.

Podhoretz has been pleading with Bush to launch an attack on Iran as soon as possible. Podhoretz calmly said in an interview, "Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians, as I hope and pray we will, we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a love fest."

...

(Excerpted from the Niagara Falls Reporter).

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:37 AM

On the Road to Oust Bush
By Michael C. Juliano
Article Launched: 12/12/2007 03:28:04 PM EST


A 60-year-old man from Vermont has been going the extra mile with the hopes of ousting President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the Oval Office -- 485 miles to be exact.
With a blue coat on his back and a yellow sign calling for Bush's impeachment in his hand, John Nirenberg, a professor of organizational behavior at the Marlboro College Graduate Center in Brattleboro, Vt., began walking on Dec. 1 from Boston's State House to the nation's capital.

Hoping to arrive in Washington before Bush's State of the Union Address in late January, he plans to deliver a petition of signatures he has been collecting along the way to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When asked if Pelosi knows he's on his way, Nirenberg said an Associated Press reporter called her office seeking comment on his walk, to which a spokesman sent a stock answer.

"I'm also sending her a letter hoping she'll talk to me," he said. "She seems nice enough and I don't see why she wouldn't."

As he makes his way along the Post Road, he plans to stop in Westport from 10 to 11 a.m. on Saturday to join the weekly peace vigil on the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Memorial Bridge. From there, he will make his way toward Norwalk to attend another vigil from 12:30 to 2 p.m. at Norwalk City Hall, 125 East Ave.

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 04:01 PM

Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19) and two other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee - Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) - today called on the committee to begin impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

They declared, "The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings."

The three Democrats wrote an op-ed to announce their position, but none of the nation's leading newspapers would publish it - just as they refuse to include impeachment in their polls, and just as they refuse to publish their own investigations of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Why? Because the Corporate Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, as it has been since the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

So this important announcement was made on a Blogcall hosted by Democrat.com, and was covered by progressive blogs - the only news media that serves the people, not the Corporations. 

You can read the full op-ed at Rep. Wexler's new site -  http://wexlerwantshearings.com  - where you can also watch a powerful video by Wexler.

Rep. Wexler needs to collect 50,000 signatures to convince his Democratic colleagues that the American people truly support impeachment hearings. So please sign his petition:
http://wexlerwantshearings.com

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 04:14 PM

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A group of protesters wants U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin to lead an effort to impeach President Bush and keep the United States from attacking Iran.

About 20 people organized by MoveOn.org crowded into Baldwin's Madison office and demanded she become a leading voice for impeachment. They also presented her staff with a petition declaring Americans don't want another war and Bush has no authority to attack Iran.

MoveOn's Madison coordinator Patty Zahler says the petition has 1,200 signatures. The organization planned to drop off identical petitions at congressional offices around the country.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:06 PM

An American hero does what he can.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

by Rob Kall    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com
   

Too many people are thinking about impeachment as an act aimed at removing the president. And it's true, that is one aspect of the impeachment process. But that's putting the cart before the horse. The most important reason to impeach is to open up hearings-- hearings that Bush is not allowed to claim presidential privilege to block subpoenas.

Dealing with the most secretive white house admin in history, it is certain that most congressionial hearings will be impeded to great extreme. We've already seen this over and over again.

The Whitehouse, Bush and Cheney are hiding from and blocking the truth on so many fronts.

We know that when aggressive hearings on any subject are held, concrete results are produced. Look at the Gonzales hearings. They worked to get rid of Gonzales and to cast much more light on attorneygate. I don't think it is a coincidence that Pete Domenici is not running for senate again. He's another victim of the hearings, or should I say, "positive result?"

Congressional hearings are the THE answer to exposing corruption, fraud and criminal and treasonous acts.

There's one problem. Bushco can block too many of the subpoenas.

Fortunately, there's a solution.
Holding impeachment hearings.

Before the congress actually acts to impeach, it holds hearings. There is one difference between usual hearings and impeachment hearings. Presidential privelege to refuse to allow testimony is not allowed.

You heard that right. The president cannot block witnesses from testifying when the hearings are about impeachment.

I'm not sure if an impeachment hearing for the vice president precludes the president from blocking testimony. But if Bush tries to do it, that would be excellent reason to include Bush in the impeachment hearings also.

There shouldn't be a hurry to vote on impeaching Bush or Cheney. There SHOULD be a hurry to start holding impeachment hearings. Before the house of representatives actually holds a vote on impeachment, it must hold hearings. This is where the findings come out. This is where we learn in detail about the abuses, the crimes, the treason that we suspect occurred.

There are so many ongoing congressional hearings that are being blocked by the Bush administration. How many of them would be opened wide if they were held in coordination with impeachment hearings? The answer is-- a whole lot.

This is a different way of thinking about impeachment-- as a process, not an outcome. The process is the aspect of impeachment that is most important in healing America. It is the process that will clearly, step-by-step, reveal the abuses and crimes, the lies and deceptions. As I've been saying for over a year (Nov. 13, 2006 Ultimately, Republicans Will Force Bush/Cheney Resignation,) hearings will start with lower level workers. They will turn over higher level power brokers who will, ultimately, to protect themselves, testify against those at the top of committed the worst offenses. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:53 PM

Former CIA analyst says evidence abounds for impeachment

By GRETYL MACALASTER
Article Date: Friday, December 21, 2007

Veteran CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern discusses "Inside INTELLIGENCE: Behind the headlines on the Iran 'Threat', our Constitutional Crisis, Prisoner Treatment and September 11th" Monday night at the Portsmouth Public Library.
(Aaron Leclerc/Staff photographer)


PORTSMOUTH Ñ The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a "prostitution of his profession" as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Don't let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence ... they knew," McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President's desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the "facts were fixed" in order to legitimize the invasion.

"The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Dick Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that," McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush's use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran's stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such "incontrovertible evidence" from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

"My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Dick Cheney could deny it. That's why the report was not produced until three weeks ago," McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting "spin" on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

"It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder," McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution "against enemies, foreign or domestic" by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying "diddly."

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to "wait it out" until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and "as good as any," McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has "admitted" to this "demonstrably impeachable offense."...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM

ust as Watergate brought down Richard Nixon, I finally have hope that the destruction of the CIA torture tapes will end the presidency of the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America.
   George W. Bush has managed to squirm out from under previous allegations of misconduct and lying. Destroying videotapes that refute his assertions that he and his administration did not torture prisoners goes way beyond the Òhigh crimes and misdemeanorsÓ section of the Constitution that would allow Congress to impeach him. Former president Bill Clinton's antics that resulted in his impeachment pale in comparison to the lies, deceit and fabrications made by George W. Bush.
   It is high time that Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, stop pussyfooting around and get down to the business of impeaching both the president and vice president before they can do any more damage to our Constitution and our country.
   
   Richard D. Muranaka
   Salt Lake City

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM

"Brattleboro Vermont resident Kurt Daims has drafted a ballot question petition calling for the town to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution, and making it the law that if either man comes to town, he would be liable to arrest.

            Some will say that this is just another unenforceable ordinance at best, and an absurdity at worst. Others worry that it will detract from the gravity of the impeachment movement as it stands today, on the cusp of forcing hearings in the House Judiciary committee. The argument will be made that such ÒextremeÓ rhetorical proclamations only serve to divide us further from each other, marginalizing the demand for accountability, rather than promoting it.


            Upon reflection these arguments can be answered and laid to rest.

            To date, the most persuasive and productive arguments for impeachment have been based upon the Constitution, which is suffering most egregiously under this administration and Congress, and which expressly proscribes the remedy to be taken should these circumstances arise. And while these arguments are making headway in the halls of Congress, where impeachment must happen, the politicians who are supposed to represent us do not yet understand the depth and breadth of our disgust and dismay with their dereliction of duty. While a growing number have joined the call for impeachment, far too many are towing the identical Republican/Democratic party line of ignoring the Bush/Cheney administrationÕs repeated constitutional violations.

            When we last faced a King George who labored to: Òsubject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our ConstitutionÓ by: Òdepriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offensesÓ, when we last found that Òour repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuryÓ, we knew what conclusion to draw: ÒA prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Ó These of course are quotes from the Declaration of Independence. And when this document was solemnly signed and made public, it had no legal standing whatsoever. It had no chance of succeeding against the worldÕs greatest empire. It alienated the colonists still friendly to England. It drew a line that clearly demarcated the divide that already existed in colonial society. Those who signed it were branded as radicals and, in fact, made outlaws by virtue of their signatures.

            Independence was declared because the laws and actions of the government were violating the laws of nature and common morality. As members of a commonweal, colonists understood that it was their inherent right, if not duty, to rise in defense of societal standards of humanity, decency and fairness. Mr. Daims and others who drafted the Brattleboro Bush/Cheney Indictment are acting in the same spirit, and with the same moral authority as our founders did in 1776.

            Prosecutors in France, Spain and many other countries have issued indictments for crimes against humanity committed outside of their borders, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrator. In some cases, prosecutors have won arrests, extraditions and prosecutions. Why shouldnÕt Brattleboro give precedence to Constitutional, American and International law, rather than bow to political expediency and a misplaced desire to not rock the boat? The boat has already foundered. The nation is already divided. Our political leaders have debased themselves and rendered our Republic dysfunctional.

            Let us support this call for an indictment. Let Brattleboro show the nation that in the current course of events, it has become necessary for Americans to take action. The current government respects neither the Constitution nor the people. Let us represent ourselves."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM

Go, Brattleboro!

A friend sent me this, recently, it's useful when contemplating the idjit in the White House:

"People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become, and they pay for it simply: by the lives they lead."
                                       ---James Baldwin

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:52 PM

"In Sunday's Washington Post, George McGovern, at 85-years-old, sternly recommends that Congress ought to impeach Bush and Cheney ("Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse"), even though much prevailing sentiment runs decidedly against it. He explains that after the 1972 presidential election, he, too, was of a mind to refrain from calling for Nixon's impeachment, namely out of a concern that his reproach would be perceived as a vendetta. He regrets that today, members of Congress are making similar calculations and accommodations and that impeachment is, therefore, highly unlikely.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.


Yet the facts won't simply go away, McGovern reminds us, even as members of Congress and mainstream media pundits try to ignore them and to deny the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from them: Bush and Cheney "are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses." They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have willfully broken laws. They have lied to the American people. They have almost certainly committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The consequences of their actions have been devastating and will be long-lasting. They should be investigated, impeached, and tried. Period.

My sense is that McGovern already knows that the purveyors of Conventional Beltway Wisdom will roll their eyeballs dismissively at his wayward op-ed. No one's in the mood for impeachment: It would be such a distraction, it would be such a downer, it could backfire, Democrats are on a roll, Republicans would never go along with it, we're all basking in Obamuckabee calls for transcending nastiness, let's move forward, it's the campaign season, hope hope hope, change change change, blah blah blah.

I don't think McGovern really expects it to happen. He's writing, instead, for the historical record. "How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality, and lawlessness?"

Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constitution -- Article II, Section 4 -- will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low.

What presidential malfeasance could ever be worse? Illegal war. Torture. Plame-gate treason. Abu Ghraib. Katrina. Guantanamo. Illegal surveillance. Halliburton no-bid contracts. Blackwater. K-Street corruption. Enron. Politicizing the Justice Department. Signing statements. And so on. Hard to imagine a U.S. administration sinking much lower.

According to the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." That's their stipulated job. If members of the 110th Congress fail to make a concerted effort in the upcoming year to uphold Article II, Section 4 of that same document, they are liable to down in history as abdicating their own constitutional duties. "

---

Excerpted from The Huffington Report


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM

"The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night."

Then I would have thought that Mr McGovern would have bothered to present this "so-called" evidence that has so far underwhelmed the majority as yet another month slips past into a new year Amos.

Just think another eleven such milestones and it will all be acedemic.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

"1/9/2008 12:53:00 PM         Email this article ¥ Print this article
Letter: Reasons for impeachment
Editor, Leader:

In Steve Hurley's letter to the editor in the Dec. 26 Leader, he calls campaigning for impeachment a waste of time. The first phrase of his last paragraph is "I may be missing something," so I'd like to bring up several points I feel Steve may be missing.

Yes, it is very late in the term to start impeachment proceedings, but since our representatives seem more influenced by large donations from corporations that profit from Bush's wars than by their constituents, we want to convince them that enough people are starting to pay attention so that money for TV ads might not be what elects them in 2008. If we can do that, the impeachment proceedings need not take so long.

I see a hope that the people of our country can be awakened from the trance induced by fearmongering of profit-motivated media monopolies, and that an impeachment campaign may help do that. Also, if impeachment is carried as far as a trial in the Senate, it could be a chance for the Republican Party to regain some of its lost integrity and credibility, as with Richard Nixon's resignation. I was talking with a Republican friend recently who said she was really distressed that it was all right for them to lie.

Steve writes that "time would be better spent helping the person you would like to see as the next president." The person I would very much like to see as our next president is Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has filed for impeachment of Dick Cheney. I see my two campaign efforts enhancing each other.

Finally, even though I feel that Kucinich is the only candidate from either party who is proposing plans that could move us in really responsible, sustainable directions, I do not want him or anyone else to inherit the precedent of illegal power abuse that not holding Bush, Cheney and company responsible for would leave for future presidents.:

WILLY STARK

Port Townsend

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:27 PM

From the Bangor, Maine Bangor News:

Cheney Impeachment
By BDN Staff
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - Bangor Daily News


Over the past 18 months, a core group of Democrats and others from the left has steadfastly maintained that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached. Mainstream Democrats in Congress are sympathetic to their arguments, but most have bowed to the political reality that impeachment proceedings would gridlock the federal government in the last year of the Bush administration, distract lawmakers from resolving problems that affect the daily lives of Americans, and possibly trigger an endless cycle of reprisal impeachment attempts for future administrations.

There is another angle on this difficult question, raised by Rep. Michael Michaud in a Dec. 21 letter to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers," Rep. Michaud wrote.

The letter urges Rep. Conyers to schedule impeachment hearings on Mr. Cheney, though not on the president's conduct. Those supporting impeachment argue Cheney in his role in the administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution on matters such as warrantless telephone eavesdropping, deliberately misled Congress and the American people about the threat posed by Iraq and Iran, revealed the name of a CIA agent, and ordered the abuse of prisoners in violation of international treaties.

The specific alleged abuses of power will, for the most part, fade away when the Bush-Cheney administration leaves Washington. But the "dangerously expanded" powers of the executive branch cited by Rep. Michaud could remain in place. Those powers will be inherited regardless of which party takes the White House, and while Democrats may relish the opportunities that come with an expanded presidency, ultimately, such an imbalance in the government is unhealthy and will increase the chance of future abuses.

Mr. Bush's interpretation of executive powers has led critics to dub his tenure the "imperial presidency." Rep. Michaud correctly notes in his call for hearings on impeachment of Mr. Cheney that: "Expansions and potential abuses of power by this administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights."

Rep. Michaud had given the impeachment matter long and careful thought, his press secretary Monica Castellanos reported, before calling for the hearings. The congressman has not prejudged the outcome of the hearings and possible investigation, she said, but he strongly believes those steps are essential in restoring Americans' trust in their government.

It is a big step for Congress to take, especially in a politically charged presidential election year. But if it is possible, a dispassionate examination of the manner in which Mr. Cheney and this administration have stretched the executive branch to the point of distorting its constitutional definition would be enlightening, and could help rebalance the powers of the federal government.

....


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

Humor:

Bush Impeachment Defense Memo Leaked, President Expects to Use Idiot Defence

as reported in Unconfirmed Sources.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM

With the original First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" looking on, admirers of the U.S. Constitution in the Washington D.C. National Archives Building today were ordered to leave for wearing tee-shirts reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney." Many of the tourist-activists were in town to hail the arrival of impeachment marcher John Nirenberg, the 61 year-old college professor who has just walked from Boston to D.C. to call attention to the need for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

In a telephone interview, one of the participants, Susan Serpa, age 56, told me she was looking at the displays when a female security guard approached her and said "You need to go speak to that man over there" indicating a burly security guard. When Serpa asked why, the woman said: "Your shirt." Serpa's shirt reads on the front: "Impeach Bush and Cheney, Change History." On the reverse it says: "MaineImpeach.org."


Other security guards then approached Serpa and told her: "You need to leave because of your shirt."

The ranking security officer present at the incident gave his name as Captain Judd.

An impeachment resolution against Dick Cheney was introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and is now sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers. Despite pleas from growing numbers of Americans, Conyers has continued to keep the resolution bottled up, and steadfastly refuses to move it forward. The number for Conyers' office is 202-225-3951.

A contact list for Conyers' major campaign contributors has been compiled by YaliesForImpeachment, along with a full contact list of Judiciary Committee members.

In addition, Rep. Robert Wexler, another Judiciary Committee member, has undertaken a campaign to sway his colleagues on the committee to support the initiation of impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney. He has spent significantly from his own funds for an advertising campaign to combat the near total media black-out on the building pressure for impeachment, and is asking for help in financing further advertising.

(Balance of story can be found here).


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

Washington state Senator Eric Oemig has drafted a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. Oemig plans to introduce his resolution (SJM 8016) when the legislative session begins on January 14th. Senator Darlene Fairley, Chair of the committee that will handle the matter, has promised a hearing.

Oemig introduced a different impeachment resolution last year, but was never granted a vote in the full Senate. The State Senate of Vermont did pass an impeachment resolution last year, and 10 other states introduced them. In a number of cases, U.S. Congress Members successfully lobbied state representatives to kill the resolutions. The New Hampshire State legislature is also expected to take up an impeachment resolution in mid-January.

A great many cities, counties, towns, political parties, and organizations have passed resolutions in favor of impeachment: A list can be found here.

Washington state has been a hotbed of impeachment activism led by Washington for Impeachment. Numerous resolutions have been passed in Washington:

See this page.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state Senate resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney was approved by a committee Monday, taking the measure one step further than it went last year.

The resolution by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, had little support from lawmakers last year, never getting to the Senate floor for a vote. But on Monday, it was approved by the five majority Democrats on the Senate's Government Operations and Elections Committee.

Passing committee is a key hurdle, but does not guarantee that the measure will get a vote on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, has said she doubts the measure will get any time on the Senate floor this year.

More than 80 people attended a testy hearing last week about the resolution, which included a heated exchange between a Republican senator and members of the audience.

During the hearing, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, accused Oemig of using the resolution for "campaign purposes." That sparked yelling and boos from the audience, to which Roach responded by displaying a picture of her son, who serves in the military.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:19 AM

Kucinich riles House GOP with plan to impeach Bush
Plans measure to impeach Bush Thursday, January 24, 2008Molly Kavanaugh and Sabrina EatonPlain Dealer Reporters

Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich created a stink on the House of Representatives floor Wednesday when he announced he'll introduce a measure to impeach President Bush when Bush delivers his final State of the Union address Jan. 28.

"We already know the State of the Union," said Kucinich, whose earlier effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney has languished in the House Judiciary Committee because of opposition from Democratic leaders. "It's a lie."

Republicans objected to Kucinich's statements, and the congressman returned to the floor a few minutes later to withdraw his "offending words." Florida GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns called his remarks a "clear and egregious violation of House rules" and scolded Kucinich for ut tering "personal accusations" against Bush and Cheney.

The testy exchange came as Ku cinich launched a bid to raise money for his congres sional re-election campaign, urging voters in the 10th congressional district to send him donations of $100 or more so he can return for a seventh term.

"Right now, I'm under attack by corporate interests, most of them from the city of Cleveland, who have an agenda that has nothing to do with the people of my community, nor with most people in this country," Kucinich says in a video posted on his congressional campaign Web site.

The timing of the video is not coincidental, said Khaled Salehi, campaign manager for Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman, one of four Democrats trying to unseat Kucinich.

On Wednesday Cimperman began airing a 30-second ad on local stations blasting Kucinich for missing votes in Congress and ignoring the district while he campaigns for president.

The ad, titled "Quitting Time," will be aired multiple times during network news shows and on cable stations, Salehi said.

Kucinich has missed 139 votes (11.6 percent) during the current Congress, including key votes on predatory lending and veterans health care, according to a database of congressional votes compiled by washingtonpost.com.

Kucinich's video makes an indirect reference to Cimperman's ad.

"Already, television commercials are flooding the Cleveland airwaves with a message that is designed to try to knock me out of office," Kucinich says in the video.

"I've served with honor and dignity in the United States House of Representatives. I've led the effort against the war and for peace and for fair trade and for a not-for-profit health-care system, and now I need you to make sure that I can continue this work."

Meanwhile, Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth, continued stumping in California for his presidential campaign. According to a report from the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the congressman is scheduled to be in California Friday to attend the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party's annual fund-raising dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM

From the Philadelphia Enquirer an articulate discourse on impeaching the P and the VP:

"Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney

Elizabeth Holtzman
served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981

Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them.

They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.

There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

Have Bush and Cheney done that?

Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008.

But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:...".

See link above for the rest of the article. This piece has several salient features which differentiate it. One, it is by a retired US Representative. Second, it is unusual for the Philadelphia Enquirer to carry this sort of material, I believe. Third, it emphasizes the means of a Judiciary Committee.

I wish Ms. Holtzman a warm reception for her views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM

"In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted the current president and vice president of the United States for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing U.S. and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on "imperial fantasies."

Bush's and Cheney's crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to and lies about Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.



But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past 12 months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment." (From OpEd News)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

A persuasive discussion of crimes and falsehoods under Bush which makes an intetresting read.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19095.htm


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM

/11/2008 8:54:00 PM

Is it time to consider impeaching the president?


"It's been almost 10 years since the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath when asked during a deposition in the Paula Jones case whether he had had sexual relations with a White House intern.

I was one of the lead attorneys in that case and had agreed to represent Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit because I believed the underlying principle in the case was too important to let it slide. Namely, no one is above the law, not even the president.

I did not, however, agree with the impeachment proceedings charging Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Don't get me wrong: what Clinton did was unacceptable and unworthy of his office and his role as a national figure. However, there's a world of difference between lying about sex and blatantly disregarding the Constitution.

As Elizabeth Holtzman, a former member of Congress who served on the House Judiciary Committee during President Nixon's impeachment, explains, "The Constitution specifies the grounds [for impeachment] as treason, bribery or 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a term that means 'great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.' As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power."

Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush has repeatedly put himself above the law and abused the power of his office. Over the past seven years, Bush has greatly expanded the power of the president, in addition to unilaterally bypassing federal law to secretly, and illegally, listen in on the phone calls of American citizens and read our e-mails, among other things. His use of presidential signing statements is yet another example of his willingness to subvert the Constitution at almost every turn.

Historically, presidents have used signing statements to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express dissatisfaction or pleasure with Congress. The previous 41 presidents combined challenged a total of only 600 laws through signing statements. Bush, on the other hand, has used the statements as a way to disregard certain laws with which he disagrees and, so far, has used the statements to challenge over 800 laws.

"The laws Bush has challenged with signing statements include a ban on torture, stricter oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, restrictions against using U.S. troops to fight rebels in Colombia, requirements that his agencies provide information to Congress, and various affirmative action programs," writes Charlie Savage for the Boston Globe.

Bush's latest signing statement was issued in response to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds nearly $700 billion to the war chest, along with a 3.5 percent military pay raise and improved health care and benefits for wounded troops. The Act also prohibits the government from spending taxpayer money to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, requires that intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA hand over reports and legal opinions to Congress, calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of waste and excessive force by military contractors abroad, and strengthens legal protections for whistleblowers who work for and report abuses of government contractors.

Although President Bush disagreed with various provisions in the Act (primarily the ones intended to hold him or other governmental agencies accountable to our elected representatives in Congress), he did not express his disagreement with a veto, as the Constitution requires. Had he done so, Congress would have had to either reconsider it or override his veto. Instead, he issued another of his infamous signing statements in which he essentially tells Congress to stick it. According to this particular statement, if Bush wants to build permanent bases, he'll do it. And if he wants to order the CIA not to report to Congress, he'll do that, too.

Such actions place the president outside the rule of law, which is foundational to our country. It keeps our country free and promotes democratic government. If the president can simply chart his own course and set his own rules, not being bound by either the Constitution or the other branches of government, he is "above the law" and becomes, in effect, a dictator who can do whatever he wants. He then becomes the law, which is precisely what the Founders intended to prevent when they drafted the Constitution. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) explains, "If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers."

We've never tolerated that before in this country, and we shouldn't start now.

The separation of powers, which is at the heart of our system of checks and balances, allows the president to have as much power as Congress and the courts but no more than that. The importance of this constitutional principle cannot be overstated. It ensures that power does not become centralized in a single branch of government, thereby preventing our country from sliding into an authoritarian regime.

Thus, it's time for Congress to grow a backbone and send this president a clear message: either step in line with the rule of law and heed the voice of "we the people" who speak through Congress or face impeachment hearings. If Congress does not act, this president and those who come after him will continue to amass power at an alarming rate to the detriment of us all.

We must never forget that America was founded on the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

It's not time to abolish our form of government, but it's certainly time to bring our elected officials under the rule of law.


About the author
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at [e-mail]. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM

And yet another month slips past Amos and still no sign of any impeachment proceedings, not long to go now. Of course if the Dems did want to throw away any chance they might have in the 2008 election they would take your advice and push for Impeachment. They're too bloody concentrated on getting themselves elected to give this nonsense a second bloody thought.

Oh Amos I liked the link especially this part of it:

THE WARS ARE ABOUT AMERICAN HEGEMONY-AND OIL

The War in Iraq

Oil

"The hydrocarbon law when passed will grant immensely profitable access for international oil companies to an estimated 81% of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. The favored companies are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco.

Sources for this section:

1. For copies of the Iraqi oil field maps, see the website of Judicial Watch, at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/oil-field-maps"

Now that source mentioned there shows the "suitors" for Iraq's oil. Guess what Amos? None of the "favoured" companies feature, any explanation of that?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM

Boulder City Council ponders resolution on calling to impeach Bush
Activists want document drafted to call for president's impeachment
By Ryan Morgan
Originally published 12:00 a.m., February 12, 2008
Updated 09:48 p.m., February 12, 2008

Boulder's elected leaders are expected to decide next week whether to draft and vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

For the past few weeks, activists have been showing up at Boulder City Council meetings, carrying signs, handing out "impeach" pins and asking City Council members to take up such a resolution. Similar measures have passed in cities across the country, including Detroit and Telluride.

Liz Robinson, one of the organizers of the effort, said people hoping to see impeachment proceedings have given congressional Democrats -- who won a majority in the fall of 2006 -- plenty of time to act.

But since they haven't, she said, locally elected officials should take up the slack."Whether or not it's the city's business directly, like potholes, I feel this affects all of us," she said. "We're the ones who are paying the taxes to support this administration's depredations, especially the war."

Impeachment proceedings would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of Bush's eight years in office at risk, Robinson said.

"We need to send a message that this all matters to us, whether it's last-minute or not," she said.

The group appears to have some support among the City Council, although it's not clear if it has the five votes it would take to get a resolution drafted and subsequently debated. City Councilman Macon Cowles wrote in a memo to his colleagues that he'll likely make a motion at the Feb. 19 meeting asking that a resolution be drafted.

"I believe that these citizens deserve a hearing," Cowles wrote to the council.

It wouldn't be the first time the City Council has weighed in on matters far outside the city's physical boundaries. In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion.

Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, who helped draft the 2006 resolution, said Boulder has a tradition of debating big-picture issues.

"I'm a believer that the council should be responsive at the level of local government to issues that the residents raise, just like the Iraq war resolution," she said.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:55 PM

Emailed from a friend; has not been evaluated:

"ThereÕs a new rule on Capitol Hill: the Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee can remove impeachment from the Constitution, but cannot also use
telephones, Email, or fax machines, because the flood of pro-impeachment
communications from outraged citizens is overwhelming each of those devices.
DonÕt believe me? Try phoning, Emailing, or faxing John ConyersÕ office.

Congressman John ConyersÕ telephone, by many reports, rang endlessly on
Monday, approximately 60 times per minute, or as fast as people could get
through. The same thing appears to be happening today (Tuesday).

If you try to get through at 202-225-5126, chances are youÕll hear a busy
signal. Other times it will simply ring forever until a recorded voice tells
you ÒYour party is not answering, please try your call later.Ó Some people
have had better luck by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121
or through one of the toll-free numbers that activist groups use, and asking
to be connected to John ConyersÕ office. Others have just run into busy
signals that way too.

If you are lucky, you will get through to a staffer, and by all reports they
are very, very cheerful staffers glad that you called, no matter where in
the country you live.

Emailing the Congressman is out, because he has stopped accepting Emails, at
least at this address [e-mail]. I could tell you some of
his staff membersÕ Email addresses, but then they wouldnÕt be able to work
for a week.

Faxing the Congressman is very much in, but you have to set your fax machine
to repeatedly redial until it gets through. The fax number is 202-225-0072.

You can also try these alternatives. Call ConyersÕ Judiciary Committee
office at 202-225-3951. Or call his Detroit, Mich., office at 313-961-5670
or his Trenton, Mich., office at 734-675-4084.

If you do get through, be prepared to hear that impeachment hearings are not
happening, but hearings into impeachable offenses are. Even though these
non-impeachment hearings will not make it onto television, and Conyers is
not even announcing them ahead of time, and even though witnesses will
refuse to show up, ConyersÕ staffers will try to tell you that hearings of
the sort theyÕve done for the past 13 months are all thatÕs needed.

Hmm. If that were true, would the phone be ringing the way it is?"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., officially joined a small but persistent group of Democrats on Wednesday calling for a robust investigation into the tenure of Vice President Dick Cheney as a possible prelude to impeachment.

DeFazio agreed to sign a letter circulated by Rep. Bob Wexler of Florida, who has been relentlessly driving the so-far-unsuccessful effort to boot Cheney from office.

Despite Wexler's persistence and DeFazio's seniority, it's unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow impeachment activities. She has said repeatedly and consistently that impeachment "is off the table" because it would get in the way of other priorities facing Congress.

Wexler is backing his demands by orchestrating a petition drive aimed at showing public demand for investigating Cheney. The focal point of that effort is a Web site, http://wexlerwantshearings.com, that allows anyone to sign the impeachment petition. So far he says he has more than 227,000 signatures.

"The charges against the vice president relate to the core actions of this administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power," Wexler wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

"As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens," says the letter, which was signed by Wexler, DeFazio and 13 other lawmakers.

DeFazio, who has been a frequent critic of the administration, said he had remained largely on the sidelines of the impeachment debate because it was centered in the Judiciary Committee, and he is not a member. "

---

In other news:

House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 1 hour ago

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.

Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.

The vote was 223-32 Thursday to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.

Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law — set to expire Saturday — allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity.

The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges.

It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation.

The action, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House.

The administration has said the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution.

Still, the resolution would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter."