BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

I got this in an email...


Honk to Impeach


"This week, every Member of Congress will be home working at their District Offices and meeting with the voters who elect them. So let's send them a loud and clear message: Start Impeachment Hearings for Dick Cheney Now.

One great way to send that message is through "Honk to Impeach" actions at the District Offices of your Representative. These actions are fun and passing cars love it. It just takes 2-3 brave people to have a successful 1-hour event.

Here's a national map with ongoing honk-a-thons:
http://www.communitywalk.com/impeach

If you don't see one near you, call your bravest friends and pick the date(s), time, and contact info. Find District Offices by searching for your Representative here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir
Then create a map login and click "add a marker."

To find other honkers, connect with activists in your Congressional District by logging in to Democrats.com and clicking "local":
http://democrats.com/local

Click [Post] next to your Congressional District and blog about your plans. All the details you need are here:
http://www.democrats.com/honktoimpeach


Since it's Washington's Birthday, we've created a special flyer you can print and hand out called WWWD: What Would Washington Do?
http://www.democrats.com/files/WWWD.doc

Time is running out so let's hit the streets this week!
http://www.democrats.com/crucial-week-for-impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 05:15 AM

And now this from NH

N.H. State Representative Betty Hall Announces Public Hearing to Petition Congress for Impeachment

New Hampshire Representative Betty Hall Announces Expert Witnesses to testify at Legislative Hearing for House Resolution 24 to Commence Impeachment Procedures in the US Congress.

Representative Hall's focus on House Resolution 24 begins the process of Impeachment for the President and the Vice President at the State level. In the State of New Hampshire, the procedure then goes to committee for a public hearing. Rep. Hall welcomes the public to attend and comment at a rally and a hearing:

Rally: 12 Noon Tuesday, February 19 at the State House Plaza.

Hearing: 1:00 pm Tuesday, February 19 at the State Legislative Office Building, Rooms 305 and 307.

Key to New Hampshire's legislative process is a strong committee recommendation for passage in the full House. Because the committee level is crucial, Representative Hall has invited a number of expert witnesses to testify on five distinct articles of impeachment. Witnesses will include Selectman Dan DeWalt VT, Herb Hoffman ME NEImpeach.org, John Kaminski Maine Lawyers for Democrac,y and Paul Lehto, a lawyer representing Election Integrity.

Uniquely for NH citizens, every bill introduced and sent to committee receives a vote in the full House. In NH there are 400 House legislators from a relatively small population state. In order for HR24 to be brought to Washington DC, only House passage is needed, neither a vote in the Senate nor a signature from the Governor is needed to send the petition to the US Congress.

Representative Hall has worked tirelessly to make sure the people's voice is heard in New Hampshire. The committee hearing serves as an opportunity for the public to become involved, expressing the voice of a true democracy.

Hall has declared that she will join the Code Pink hunger strike and is "willing to die for impeachment."

http://afterdowningstreet.org/fasting

You are encouraged to attend the public hearing to show support for Rep. Hall and this House Resolution.

Flyer: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31092

More Info: http://afterdowningstreet.org/nh

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 06:17 PM

by David Swanson    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

                



If you've lost your house to a predatory lender and you ask your congress member to impeach Bush and Cheney for your loss, will they look at you like you're crazy? That depends entirely on how many of you are asking.

If there are not enough of you, they'll look at you like you're crazy for suggesting impeachment as a response to illegal wars, lies to Congress, misappropriation of funds, rewriting bills with "signing statements," warrantless spying, extra-legal detentions, torture, war crimes, refusal to comply with subpoenas, or just about anything else. The White House could make the occupation of Iraq permanent or ignore a major hurricane or expose an undercover agent as payback for a whistleblower, and you'd get the "You've got to be nuts" look for suggesting impeachment if there weren't enough of you. As a matter of fact, many of us already have.


But if the 81% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president were to demand his removal, he'd be out on his ear faster than you can rig an election, award a no-bid contract, or fire an honest prosecutor.

A different question, of course, is whether, in asking for impeachment as a response to losing your house, you really would be crazy. On what grounds, after all, could you really argue that Bush and Cheney stole your house?

(See balance of article here to find out...)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Well Amos, March has come in like a Lion and I daresay it will go out like a lamb with still no "Declaration of Impeachment" any nearer.

All those groups you've cut'n'pasted about - don't they have any real function? Are they bored? Can't they think of doing something that actually needs doing? Going by the response garnered over the years this thread has been going, general concensus would tend to suggest that they are flogging a dead horse.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

THe pressure continues to build, Teribus. I am afraid you may be right, that the devil will be out of the stable before the machinery moves to close the door. But that does not change the fundamental facts of crimes committed in office. PErhaps we will nail the bastard post-officio, eh?

With all you sarcasms about the futility of this thread, you create the impression of an apologist for the crimes involved.

How do you plead?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:05 AM

Trouble is that most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn.

Your "Impeachment" process is not a "legal" process, therefore phrases such as your "facts of crimes committed in office" and others yammering on about "evidence" of this or "evidence" of that only amounts to just so much hogwash. There is no legal or formal means to establish clearly whether or not crimes have been committed and there appears to be no standard set for the establishment, examination or presentation of what would constitutue "evidence".

I know before anybody points it out that they are not the same as the political set up and machinery is entirely different but what you seek in your "Impeachment" process boils down to what in the UK Parliament would be called a "Motion of No Confidence"(Proposed by the Opposition) or "Motion of Confidence" (Proposed by the Government) in the Prime Minister. If either goes against the Government of the day it falls and a General Election has to be called.

There will be no "Impeachment", because quite rightly Nancy Pelosi and most of those sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate fully realise exactly what damage it would do to the United States of America both domestically and internationally. With regard to both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq those same people are also fully aware of the part that they played in influencing and supporting the decisions made.

So, my plea, most definitely "Not Guilty". I can hardly be an apologist for the crimes that have not been committed. Crimes that you and your supporters have yet to establish were ever perpetrated.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:08 AM

SSDD, T.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:51 AM

most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn

List the ones who are doing it for personal motive, please, specifying which ones are doing it for re-election. For the ones who are not doing it for re-election, please tell us what the 'personal motives' are.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:27 AM

Dare say I could state the same Amos, but I wouldn't need anything like the time, number of entirely meaningless "cut'n'pastes" or number of posts to arrive at that conclusion with regard to this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM

Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM

Hey CarolC you Twat I thought that I was to too stupid to argue with on another thread. Tell you what darlin' when you start answering the questions I have posed you then and only then can you have a go at me.

Right for starters I want a clear and unequivocal response from you that with respect to violence in the middle-east between the Jews and the Arabs that it was the Arabs who instigated the violence based on circumstances that were completely false. If you are not prepared to do so, then please phrase some alternative scenario that is open for discussion, clearly stating the start time for the era that has to be discussed,

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:32 PM

Definitely too stupid to argue with. But I'm not arguing - just putting a bit of a decorative frame around that fact and enjoying the view.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 07:17 AM

"Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along."

You mean pretty much as you do CarolC - Open minded, what you! You have got to be kidding you are the epitomy of a lying, racist, bigot who is totally incapable of rational thought.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Desperate words from a desperate man, I think, Teribus. Still enjoying the view from here...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

Children, back to your rooms. And don't come out until you can be civil. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM

What do you think, Amos... do you think Teribus could provide us with a list of the people in the public eye who are calling for impeachment who are doing so for personal reasons and also provide a list of the personal reasons? I don't think he can do it, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

Ah, Carol, except in the broad and evasive sense that all motivations are personal, I think his assertion is without substance or merit. This is what I implied with my curt acronymic dismissal -- same shit, different day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:03 PM

Democrats and a lawless Bush
An editorial — 3/11/2008 5:48 am (Capital TImes)

In response to President Bush's veto of legislation banning so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a Washington phrase for what the rest of us know as torture -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold was appropriately disappointed.

"With bipartisan support, Congress voted to prohibit so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' The CIA's interrogation program, which has included torture, represents the opposite of what we are fighting for in the global struggle against al-Qaida," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "The program is morally reprehensible and legally unjustified, and it has not made our country any safer. The president's veto is inexplicable and adds to his legacy of disregarding the rule of law and the core principles on which this country was founded."

Unfortunately, disappointment means nothing to the Bush administration.

This White House responds only to threats of official sanction or funding cuts.

The Congress should recognize that fact and challenge the president's veto.

Step One: Schedule override votes in the House and the Senate now. Don't delay, and don't play games. Get everyone on the record regarding waterboarding and related torture techniques -- which even Bush's candidate for president, Arizona Sen. John McCain -- says are at once immoral and ineffective.

The override votes should be command performances. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be expected to participate in the Senate debate and vote. No excuses for them, and no excuses for McCain. No one running for president in 2008 deserves a vote if there is any sense that they would perpetuate Bush's lawlessness.

Step Two: Explore the steps that must be taken to eliminate funds for torture and draw up the necessary language to be attached to appropriations for the agencies in question and the White House. There needs to be a "no money for torture" amendment that is easily understood yet ironclad in its commitments.

Step Three: Feingold should dust off his censure motion against President Bush and press it more aggressively now than ever. He should include language regarding torture, and he should seek new co-sponsors -- especially a certain senator from Illinois and a certain senator from New York.

Feingold's House colleagues should draw up specific articles of impeachment relating to torture. They should cite the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly bars cruel and unusual punishment of individuals incarcerated by the United States government -- as well as legal requirements established by our treaty commitments and formalized agreements with the world community, including the Geneva Conventions.

It is fine to be disappointed with Bush.

It is necessary to act to constrain him, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should join Russ Feingold in pressing the case.
'

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

"In considering how to raise the dynamic for a House Judiciary Congressional Investigation of Bush and Cheney it seems one element missing is changing the discussion about impeachment from one about "political fallout" to a discussion of "accountability" in government. Since many Republicans currently in the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice, presumably justified by the need for accountability in the Executive Branch, these same individuals should be able to explain why they have ignored the far more egregious violations of the Bush Administration and fail to support at least an impeachment investigation.

Alternatively, if the only interest of these members of Congress in 1998 was the use of impeachment for "political advantage" perhaps it is time they go on record as stating why they felt impeachment was acceptable for Bill Clinton just 9.25 years earlier but is not acceptable now with respect to holding George Bush and Dick Cheney "accountable". It may not change anything but the fall election by doing this. However, having each person on record as stating they don't believe Bush or Cheney has done anything worthy of an impeachment hearing even though they felt impeachment was justified and voted for it when Bill Clinton was in office in 1998 may be a worthwhile objective to clarify this hypocrisy.

Voters can decide for themselves whose interests these Representatives truly serve later this year. Not a single person on this list who felt Bill Clinton had violated his oath of office and was guilty of impeachable offenses has been so moved to support even an impeachment investigation of President George W. Bush or Vice President Richard Cheney for any offense while they have been in office. Not a single person on this list has requested that George W. Bush be investigated by the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) even though several are HJC members (***).

If possible, each and every person on this list should be asked the following 4 questions:

1. What do you believe is the purpose of impeachment?
2. Why do you believe we have an impeachment process as part of our US constitution?
3. Why did you support the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton in December 1998?
4. Why do you feel none of the following charges made against the present administration of George W. Bush and Cheney is worthy of even an impeachment hearing?



a. Misleading Congress about the need for a war with Iraq.

b. Obstruction of justice by telling Federal Employees not to testify before Congress and/or not to respond to Congressional subpoenas.

c. Misuse of the Department of Justice for political purposes instead of law enforcement.

d. Approval of torture for captured prisoners by the US in violation of ratified US treaties.

e. Not providing the due process guaranteed to a US citizen by our Constitution by placing him in Guantanamo Bay Prison camp without access to a lawyer for an extended time period.

f. Attempt to bribe a US citizen who was raped and illegally imprisoned with US tax dollars to keep her silent and get her to drop her suit against Halliburton and the State Department.

g. Approval of the spying on US citizens by the NSA without a warrant.

h. No-bid extended contracts and failure of government agencies to enforce rules and regulations on the businesses they regulate leading to the loss of billions of tax payer dollars from the US treasury.

i. Destruction of government records to circumvent accountability by Congressional oversight.
...(OpEd News)

---

Just keeping the point on the radar.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM

Bush skates free


Bill Clinton has a tête-à-tête with an assistant and Congress spends a zillion bucks to impeach him. The governor of New Jersey comes out of the closet, and he is rushed to retirement. Now the governor of New York is caught with his pants down, and he is forced to resign.

However, George W. Bush lies to us, illegally invades a sovereign nation and, in effect, causes the murder of 4,000 American sons and daughters and heaven only knows how many civilians. In addition, our economy, education and health care is going down the tube because he is blowing 12 billion bucks a month on the Iraq fiasco, and no one utters a word about impeachment, indictment and trial. Excuse me?



Bruce Graydon,

Fort Collins

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, reflecting on the quick exit of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, wonders aloud in a new essay how President George W. Bush has escaped the same fate despite Bush's role in considerably more damning and damaging crimes.

In the piece entitled "Country of Laws," Nader blasts Bush for fictionalizing his Iraq war actions and for saying that he'll leave office with no regrets. While Spitzer resigned within days of his admission to indiscretions, "Bush remains," writes Nader, "disgracing his office for longtime repeated violations of the Constitution, federal laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory."

Nader contrasts Spitzer's legal and personal transgressions, and the price the now ex-governor is rapidly paying for them, with Bush, who "violated federal laws against torture, against spying on Americans without judicial approval, against due process of law and habeas corpus in arresting Americans without charges, imprisoning them and limited their access to attorneys." He adds that Bush has "committed a massive war of aggression, under false pretenses, violating again and again treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, federal statutes and the Constitution."

Despite this, and the human, financial and infrastructural cost of the war, Bush is, as Nader writes, "effectively immune from federal criminal and civil laws because no American has standing to sue him and the Attorney General, who does, is his handpicked cabinet member.

"Moreover," continues Nader, "the courts have consistently refused to take cases involving the conduct of foreign and military policy by the president and the Vice President regardless of the seriousness of the violation."

Nader says that judges readily and repeatedly dismiss such cases as "political" and say Congress is the way to pursue grievances, specifically via its authority to impeach. Yet only Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has publicly called for impeachment, Nader notes. (Nader curiously fails to acknowledge that in December 2006, now-former Rep. Cynthia McKinney--a rival 2008 White House candidate running on the Green Party ticket--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as one of her final legislative acts before leaving Congress.)

Meanwhile, rues Nader, "the American people have no authority to challenge [Bush's] governmental crimes, which are committed in their name, and are rendered defenseless except for elections, which the two Party duopoly has rigged, commercialized, and trivialized. Even in this electoral arena, a collective vote of ouster of the incumbents does not bring public officials to justice, just to another position usually in the high paying corporate world."

Nader says that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will leave office as "fugitives from justice without any sheriffs, prosecutors or courts willing to uphold the rule of law."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

"I mean, seriously? Watching him do his little tap dance on the White House steps while waiting for Senator McCain last week, watching the tape of his cowboy song and dance routine at the Gridiron Club event ("Here comes Scooter/Finally free of the prosecutor..."), then hearing -- and reading about -- his breezily irrelevant speech on the teetering American economy, it did occur to me that the poor man, once merely out of his depth, had in fact slipped from simple denial of reality into the realm of certifiable disconnection from the world the rest of us inhabit.

I wonder if we out here in the public realm would necessarily recognize it, if it had happened. Is the president so protected by our common need to believe in the sanity of our leaders that we might refuse to recognize a dreadful truth? Are those around him conspiring to hide the truth from us? And how would we know? I recall that wonderful book, Being There -- and the wonderful Hal Ashby/Peter Sellers movie of the same name that was based on that Jerzy Kosinski novel--in which a simple-minded gardener ascended to the presidency. But we're dealing now with something more than a simple mind. It's a dangerously deluded one -- one that reports with no apparent sense of irony on instructions received from God. Don't we put people like that away, for their own protection as well as ours? And let's remember -- hard though that may be, these days -- that we're engaged in something other than a novel or a movie. We're in it, while our "president" is showing signs of something a lot worse than common job-related stress.

Have we reached the time for rational minds to take control? Should we demand to have Bush's behaviors evaluated by professionals? Should the leaders of Congress act to take the reins of government before the country plunges into chaos? How is it possible that it has come this far? How is it possible that this president has escaped impeachment? As one of the readers of my blog, The Buddha Diaries, noted: "The masses were swift to support the impeachment of Clinton for a little lie about some nookie, but Bush gets a free pass to kill countless innocent people in a war that was conducted based on lies and deception with an impeachment nowhere in sight."

(Huffington Post 3-18)

I know we have only a few more months to survive this nightmare, but are things not getting worse from day to day, from hour to hour? Or is it just my imagination playing tricks with me?

I mean, seriously..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 10:04 AM

he first time Rep. Betty Hall had the opportunity to vote in support of a presidential impeachment, she declined.

It was 1973 and Hall, only two years into what would become a lengthy legislative career, found herself surrounded by New Hampshire lawmakers debating a resolution urging the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon. Opposition was overwhelming: The proposal garnered 11 votes, Hall said.

Thirty-five years after refusing to support the Nixon resolution, Hall, a Brookline Democrat who celebrated her 87th birthday yesterday, is leading the charge for a different impeachment proposal. In a resolution urging Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - which is scheduled for a House vote this week - Hall outlines her case, arguing that Bush and Cheney

violated international treaties "by invading Iraq without just cause or provocation" and that they misled Congress to gain authorization for the war.

The resolution, Hall said earlier this week, is "probably the most serious effort I've been engaged in in my long period of service." In addition to condemning Bush and Cheney's behavior in the run-up to the war, the resolution cites the detentions of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; warrantless wiretapping; and the "pattern and practice of threatening litigation" against those who refuse to install voting machines "that require votes to be counted in trade secrecy."

"We don't know the truth," Hall said. "Impeachment is about finding the truth."

Just as the Nixon resolution inspired detractors, Hall's proposal has outspoken opponents.

"I have never seen a document more vitriolic and more inflammatory," Rep. David Hess, a Hooksett Republican, testified at a public hearing last month. The resolution won minimal support from the legislative committee charged with studying it: A majority of that committee recommended the full House reject the proposal.

But Hall, colleagues and relatives say, has never been one to wither in the face of opposition.

"Betty Hall is the right one to do it because when Betty Hall gets something in her head and wants to do it, she doesn't back down because maybe it's unpopular," said Rep. Liz Hager, a Concord Republican. "She is certainly tenacious."

In Brookline, where Hall has lived for decades, her support for the resolution likely isn't turning many heads, said Peter Webb, the town moderator and Hall's longtime neighbor. "Betty's always been a freethinker and one who stood up for her principles," he said.

"She's an extraordinary mix of determination, independence, intelligence and grace," said Webb, who recalled Hall welcoming his family to Brookline nearly three decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM

From CNSNEws.com:

Judiciary Chair Pledges Legal Action Against Bush After Nov 4

(CNSNews.com) - At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) guaranteed his liberal audience that he will pursue legal action against President Bush after the November elections. Conyers was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush. "Yes, you have my word on that," Conyers replied. He then shook the questioner's hand as a sign of his commitment. Conyers, who chairs the house Judiciary Committee, told an audience at the liberal Take Back America Conference that he is wrestling with the idea of beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but he believes that such an effort at this time might hamper Sen. Barack Obama's chance of winning the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

Frustrated Anti-War Leader Pleads for Congress to Impeach
By Josiah Ryan
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - One of the organizers of this week's anti-war protests in Washington, D.C., is pleading with House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) to make good on his repeated threats to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

David Swanson, who runs After Downing Street, a coalition that includes hundreds of prominent liberal activist groups, including Veterans Against the Iraq War and Code Pink, prompted cheers on Tuesday when he called for Bush's impeachment at a rally in front of the White House. About 70 people attended the rally.

Swanson told Cybercast News Service he has grown frustrated with Conyers' posturing about impeachment. "He doesn't mean it," said Swanson. "He isn't really working on it with anyone in the House. It's just an applause line."

Nonetheless, Swanson is not giving up on urging Conyers and the Democratic leadership to take action on impeaching President Bush before the end of the year.

"This is up to you, Congressman Conyers, this is your chairmanship," said Swanson. "We won it for you. We voted for lousy Democrats all across the country so you could have the chairmanship and act on your promises and impeach these criminals."

"Congressman John Conyers has an outstanding record," said Swanson. "But now he is treating our Constitution as a joke and treating us as idiots. This is offensive to all of us.

"Congressman Conyers, do not throw it away," said Swanson. "Don't make your legacy be the destruction of the Constitution, and do not blame it on Sen. Barack Obama."

Swanson was referring to Conyers's comment to Cybercast News Service on Tuesday that he would like to impeach President Bush but was afraid the action would prevent Obama (D-Ill.) from being elected president. (See story)

Conyers said he was afraid Republicans would use an impeachment attempt to hammer Democrats in the campaign -- "and that we end up getting McCain (as president)," Conyers said. "I would regret that for the rest of my life. That's the only reason. That would be my fear."

Conyers admitted, however, that he was "struggling" with a decision on whether to try impeaching Bush before the election. The Judiciary Committee, which Conyers chairs, would ordinarily conduct an impeachment inquiry, if there is one, and approve any Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the full House.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM

From Op-Ed NEws:


For those following the drama of New Hampshire residents using "Jefferson's Manual" to force the Congress to take up the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, here's the dirty little secret: it's really easy. All you need to do is print out a version of the below resolution, walk it to an amenable state representative (or assemblyman/woman), and have them enter it into State House business. Now you have an active impeachment resolution in your state.

Is it effective? From a legal standpoint, no one knows, since no presidential impeachment has ever been commenced through Jefferson's Manual, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature. But from a political standpoint, 50 states having impeachment resolutions in the works would make Congress's I-See-Nothing position untenable. So far California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas (YES TEXAS!), Washington, and Wisconsin have active impeachment resolutions. Growing that number exponentially in a short time would be one way to jump-start the growing movement, using the tool the Founders gave us when they envisioned a confederation of states with powers which balanced those of the central government.


Section 603 was included by the Founders as an additional check on the Executive Branch which emanates from the states, rather than from the Congress. It seemed to foresee the situation today, when even Congress, the branch of government which is supposed to be closest to the people, becomes aloof and imperial. Polls show 45 percent of Americans are in favor of impeaching George Bush, a solid 55 percent in the case of Dick Cheney, and these are from early 2007. Bush has not gotten any more popular since. With these kinds of numbers, even if it were unclear exactly where among the silverware impeachment belongs, it is certainly somewhere on the table. Taking it off the table gives a green light for the administration to keep doing more of what it has been doing, like a recalcitrant child being told no matter how badly he behaves, there will always be ice cream for dessert.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

"New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall, age 87, Brookline, NH, is fighting to save the nation from the Bush-Cheney cabal and return us to constitutional democracy, with her bill, HR 24, to the NH State House, to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

If passed on 4-16-08, when it is scheduled for vote before the entire NH House, the bill will go under state seal, without need of governor signature, to the US House for review, demanding in the name of New Hampshire's people that Congress begin impeachment hearings immediately for Bush-Cheney high crimes against the Constitution, the American people, and humanity.

I am writing to you because I know that you are patriots. Betty Hall is fighting for us, and more importantly, for our children, and theirs. Betty needs our help. Accordingly, on Monday, 4-14-08, the New England impeachment community has organized an HR 24 lobbying and rally forum, featuring:

Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War Era Icon, Who Saved Countless US, Vietnamese and Other Lives By Releasing the Pentagon Papers

Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General Under President Lyndon Johnson

Dr. Robert Bowman, Former Director of the "Star Wars" Space Weapon Program, Now Its Most Ardent Critic

Other Renowned Public Fugures Committed to our Constitution and Peace in Our World

When:

Monday, April 14, 2008, 3 PM to 11 PM

Where: Capital Center for the Arts, 44 S, Main Street, Concord, NH

Purpose: To lobby uncommitted NH lawmakers to vote for HR 24, and to rally North East supporters of impeachment"

(From Global Research.net)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:29 PM

"Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office." -- article of impeachment filed against President Nixon.


There is no shortage of potential charges against the current occupant of the White House. Yet he remains, safe and oblivious. To make the "checks and balances" provided by the Constitution a credible possibility, shouldn't members of the House of Representatives actually perform the duties they swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office?


The Bush administration has made it easy, already admitting to electronic eavesdropping on Americans without the required court warrants. The precedent was one of the articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon. The president's illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.


President Bush also is accused of engaging in a systematic pattern of making false statements to the American people and their representatives in Congress concerning the potential threat of Iraq-based weapons of mass destruction.


And, his administration violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law by seizing military powers reserved to the U.S. Congress, initiating the invasion of Iraq prior to the required debate by the people through their representatives in Congress to produce the necessary official declaration of war.


And, without a congressional declaration of war, the president and his administration have authorized the denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, thus violating U.S. and international law.


Our Constitution provides for impeachment. Impeachment is an indictment. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5.) Then the Senate tries an impeached official with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict. (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.)


Furthermore, the power to pardon cannot trump the impeachment powers of Congress: "The President shall ... have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)


So, while it isn't easy to remove a president, if the Congress doesn't exercise its responsibilities, abuses can and do happen.


Republicans believe in law and order and a limited constitutional government. Democrats are known for their support for civil rights. The Wisconsin Democratic, Green and Libertarian parties all have called for the impeachment of Bush.


All congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Dave Obey, where are you? Let the hearings begin, chips falling where they may. Let justice be done.


Jim Maas of Rothschild is a member of the executive committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 03:36 AM

That's March gone Amos, let's see I,ve only got eight more of these posts to go. During the coming months those in politics in the US are going to be far too busy getting themselves elected or re-elected and as "Impeachment" is a political process, who has actually got time for this crap?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:14 AM

We have time to dismantle the Constitution; we have time to invade foreign nations; we have time to support all manner of destructive schemes to harm citizen, distort education, hide money, and kill humans,

But taking the linchpins of incompetence out of the machine...We don't have time for this crap?

You sound like Southwest Airlines in bed with the FAA, pal. "No time for safety -- too busy flying airplanes...".

Wake up, Ter.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 04:20 PM

"We have time to dismantle the Constitution;"

Your precious Constitution is far from being dismantled. We in the good old UK have never had need of such a document, but whatever, if it is of such importance to you please be assured it has not been infringed in the slightest - It was after all drafted in 1776 based upon our own Magna Carta which pre-dates it by 500 years or more.

"we have time to invade foreign nations;"

You mean the ones that actually harboured and refused to give up those who attacked you on the 11th September, 2001? You mean the ones who openly celebrated that attack and broke every undertaking that they had given to the UN with regard to pursuit of development of Weapons of Mass Destruction and support of international terrorist groups? You mean that you invaded foreign nations that your own Joint House Security Committee identified as being the greatest threat to the United States of America?

"we have time to support all manner of destructive schemes to harm citizen, distort education, hide money, and kill humans"

Utter crap Amos in all that time since September 11th, 2001 every single one of you complaining, bitching, motherfuckers, currently resident the so wonderful United States of America has been held safe, because of the direction, leadership and single-mindedness of your current Administration. Now all I am waiting to hear from one of you is that you acknowledge that truth. After all you have been under attack, or threat of attack since 1993.

By the bye Amos looking back at past Presidents - JFK was downright dangerous; Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter buffoon; Barak Obama is somewhere inbetween, personally I think, in current world terms that he will prove to be more dangerous than JFK and a bigger fool/incompetent than "peanut" Carter. But never mind, elect him and you'll be well and truly fucked but the world will love you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 06:47 PM

All us "motherfuckers" here in the US Teribus are wondering why an "over the ponder" such as yourself has such a slanted outlook on how we in the US feel about our precious Constitution, our amendments, our Bill of Rights and about our history. After all we built our model on the best parts of yours without the Royalty. We don't see ourselves in the same danger that you see US, we are mostly in danger from ourselves. We don't want our rights, Constitution & amendment going into hiding every time we get attacked or threatened. We can stand the heat without the loss of freedom of movement, speech, privacy, the right to assemble, the loss of our corpus's bis-quits-us (which is based on your Magna Carta which pre-dates our constitution it by 500 years or so). As Franklin said we deserve neither freedom nor safety if we have to forfeit or rights (or something close to that). You can go shout from the mountain top from where you stand but your voice is lost in the sea of shit you swim in by the time any sensible sound of it reaches our shores. Go start a movement to right your own motherfucking wrongs.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:17 PM

Teribus is a reptilian shape shifter.
























;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:38 AM

Although I have to say that I find it very strange that someone would be so contemptuous of people for making decisions about their own country (and not his), that he would use such strong language as "motherfucker" when referring to them. Must be that British colonialist supremacism rising to the surface again. The pinnacle of human development telling the insects of the rest of the world what's what. Teribus would have worshiped Hitler had he been born in Germany during Hitler's time.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:42 AM

Two towns vote to arrest Bush, Cheney
Marlboro, April 05: Voters in two Vermont towns on Tuesday approved a measure that would instruct police to arrest President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," local media reported.

The nonbinding, symbolic measure, passed in Brattleboro and Marlboro in a state known for taking liberal positions on national issues, instructs town police to "extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them."

Vermont, home to maple syrup and picture-postcard views, is known for its liberal politics.

State lawmakers have passed nonbinding resolutions to end the war in Iraq and impeach Bush and Cheney, and several towns have also passed resolutions of impeachment. None of them have caught on in Washington.

Bush has never visited the state as president, though he has spent vacations at his family compound in nearby Maine.

Roughly 12,000 people live in Brattleboro, located on the Connecticut River in the state's southeastern corner. Nearby Marlboro has a population of roughly 1,000.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:50 AM

News of the possible!!

The entire Police Department of Marlboro VT was wiped out today in clash with the Secret Service. Dick Cheney was visiting the town and the officers were acting on standing orders to arrest him.

In a carefully worded statement, Chaney had this message for the town of Battleboro. "You were saying?"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:58 PM

Nader's been thoughtful, and correct, in his assessment of the issue -- and of why it must be raised in an election year when the major-party contenders seem to be united in their determination to avoid the topic.

Here's a message Nader, who is campaigning with former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez this year, recently sent to supporters:

As you know, Obama, Clinton and McCain have taken impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table.

Nader/Gonzalez want to put it back on.

Our campaign will be impeachment central for this momentous election year.

No one should be above the law -- especially chronic violators.

We're building a nationwide campaign to end the corrupt two party duopoly and pressure the complicit Democrats to do their sworn duty and impeach the two unaccountable outlaws in the White House.

Last week, I wrote to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers once again urging him to hold impeachment hearings.

This week, citizens from around the country are sitting in at Chairman Conyer's office on Capitol Hill demanding that he take action.

In that letter to Congressman Conyers, I pointed out the obvious:

Many prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.

The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution.

Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States. ...

(The Nation)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM

CONCORD, N.H.ÑTo boost her campaign for a bill that would call for the impeachment of President Bush over the Iraq war, an 87-year-old great-grandmother drummed up support Monday from the whistleblower who leaked secret Pentagon documents during the Vietnam War.

It's unlikely that HR24 would pass, but Betty Hall, a Democrat and longtime representative from Brookline, is hopeful. Hall is the only sponsor of the bill, which is scheduled for debate on Wednesday.

"We are trying to make history by being the first Legislature to forward a petition to Congress under Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual," she said. "I'm feeling very good about it."

Hall was referring to the "Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States," written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

In 2004, Hall was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after she wouldn't move away from a Nashua motorcade Bush was scheduled to drive by. The case was later dismissed when a judge ruled the evidence didn't fit the charge.

On hand to support Hall's cause Monday was Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked to the media the "Pentagon Papers," secret documents that indicated the government deceived the public about whether the Vietnam War could be won. Ellsberg faced up to 115 years in prison, but the charges were dismissed because of government misconduct against him.

"They are domestic enemies of the United States' Constitution," Ellsberg said of Bush and Vice President Cheney. He said he hopes impeachment proceedings could shed light on classified information from the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:08 AM

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire's House has set aside a bill that would call for the impeachment of President Bush over the Iraq war.

The bill, HR24, was tabled Wednesday on a roll call vote of 227 to 95. Action could be taken on the bill later in the session.

Democrat Betty Hall of Brookline sponsored the measure.

A legislative committee voted in February not to recommend it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM

How's this Quixotic impeachment thing of yours coming along Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:30 PM

Well, Wes, it's really not Quixotic, in the usual sense. It's more like an impulse to prosecute criminality that exists in real world fact, not joust with windmills.   But the closer the end of Bush's term comes, the easier it gets to let the passive-aggressives give him a pass. It is disgraceful, and disgusting that no stand will be taken for getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to.

At present the demand is on the wane, it appears. A shame, really.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM

Damn right. I know a dragon when I see one!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:34 PM

April's now come and gone Amos.

Now what was this impeachment based on Amos? Misrepresenting things to Congress wasn't it? But hang on a minute Amos you and your pal Bobert aren't adverse to misrepresenting things when it suits you're arguements are you - Something about announcing to the world and its dog that "Upwards of one million Iraqis have been killed" when in actual fact you know that that is not correct, you can offer no substantive proof that that number have died and the sources you quote freely admit that their figure is based upon guesswork.

One law for the goose and another for the gander eh Amos. What a good little hypocrite you are.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:43 PM

Well, T, your pretty spiteful your own self. I showed you where B gt that number from, and you got all annoyed because of the fact it was an estimate.

Calling me a hypocrite is a little out there, pal. I feel the same way about a ten-thousand-bloody-deaths figure as I do about a one-million.

ANd let me just point out, smartass, that if I stated a wrong figure while passing that link along, it has caused zero fatalities, zero maimings, zero madness and zero destruction of a human life.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:07 AM

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right across the board Amos irrespective.

You judge, or hold people that you like, or approve of, by completely different criteria to those you dislike, or disapprove of - at times to such an extent that it is laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:48 PM

Laugh away, T. Be my guest. It might keep you from starting a bloody war.

I do not agree with your last, by the way; I have very good rationalizations for everything I say and write!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 04:57 PM

New Hampshire Representative Pushes to Impeach Bush and Cheney
Resolution 24 created by Betty Hall urges the US Congress to Impeach the President and Vice President.

Atlanta, GA 5/12/2008 04:16 PM GMT (FINDITT)





87 year old New Hampshire state representative Betty Hall is asking the US Congress to investigate President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and implement their impeachment with her House Resolution 24.



Supports of Resolution 24 accuse Bush and Cheney of putting the nation in an "undeclared, preemptive, never-ending war under false pretenses," according to the Intelligence Daily. Rep. Hall states that some of the backers are very concerned about the Bush administration's decision to eliminate prohibitions against torture.



Rep. Hall is not concerned about the timing, claiming that the "moral imperative of impeachment is too great to ignore." Rep Hall is asking the 400 member New Hampshire House, to pass HR 24 and tell Congress, "for God's sake, it's time to consider some actual checks and balances."



HR 24 went to the floor on April 16, in the wake of a local impeachment rally on April, 14, featuring Daniel Ellsberg and Dr. Robert Bowman. HR 24 is similar to an earlier resolution developed in 2007 in Vermont which stopped at the State Senate. A new resolution was drafted again in January 2008. The April 16 floor vote did not pass, 95-227. It was declared "inexpedient to legislate." In order for the resolution to pass, it needs to be taken off of the table by a simple majority vote, which will allow the "inexpedient" tag to be removed and enable the process to continue.



Rep Hill states, "On May 17, I will try again without hesitation," nothing that New Hampshire independent voters are coming together to support the impeachment. Many republicans believe HR 24 is a form of revenge for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.



"It's not just about Bush and Cheney, its about our Constitution. Its about finding the truth, justice and restoration of the rule of law. You cant have a state legislature without a relationship with the federal government," Hall says. She also says that starting the impeachment so close to the end of the Bush-Cheney regime is beneficial in the way that it sends a strong message about the need for accountability.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:00 PM

Veterans Tell Conyers "Impeach Bush"

WASHINGTON, DC - May 16 - A national veterans' organization today sent a letter to Representative John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, requesting a meeting with him to deliver over 10,000 signatures on a petition to impeach George W. Bush. Impeachment hearings would have to be convened by the Michigan Democrat.

The president of Veterans For Peace, Elliott Adams, wrote Conyers requesting a meeting in early June to deliver their petitions. In it, he pointed out that by invading and occupying Iraq, the Bush administration has violated the U.S. Constitution, domestic laws and international treaties.

Adams' letter said, "Having taken an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, our members takeÉthe obligation to impeach George W. Bush most seriously...we must hold this administration accountable for waging a war of aggression against Iraq."

The former paratrooper and Viet Nam combat vet reminded the 21-term Representative from Detroit that, "You have taken the same oath, Congressman Conyers, and we expect you will hold it just as sacred as we do and begin impeachment hearings at the soonest possible moment."
Adams concluded his request by writing, "Congressman Conyers, you have stood on the side of justice in battles too numerous to mention during your long career in the House. Will you one day go into retirement with a shadow over your entire record because you did not do everything possible to hold this criminal administration accountable? We genuinely hope not."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:32 AM

Nader to call for Bush impeachment in front of White House
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/22/08 11:44 AM [ET]
Perennial also-ran presidential candidate Ralph Nader is planning to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in a news conference in front of the White House Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:51 AM

800 Up