News Impeach Bush/Cheney: Take Action Now!

[Skyhunter]

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi was condemned?

 

[SOS2008]

That deserves a double duh! Apparently you have no knowledge of the impeachment process re: the executive branch. If you take the trouble to enlighten yourself, you will find it is similar to a criminal indictment and that Clinton was most definitely IMPEACHED.

Personally I took great pleasure in his impeachment, but I would have preferred that he was simply condemmed as per N. Pelosi. After his presidency ended he would have been tried before his peers and found guilty and served a few months in jail. As it was he was later stripped of his law license for "serious miscounduct" purjury and obstruction of justice by a judge he appointed.

DUH!

As much as it would be nice to stay OT regarding a Bush/Cheney impeachment, let's at least try to stay germane to the matter of Clinton and impeachment – or should we say a trial for impeachment, which concluded in:

a. Impeachment
b. Acquittal

While you consider your answer, I'll be out getting enlightened…

From The Kansas City (Mo.) Star:
"It has been a long, humiliating and deeply flawed process. But the Senate finally arrived at the right place Friday when it decided against removing President Clinton from office. …the bar for removing a sitting president is and should remain extremely high. While there is room for reasonable people to disagree on whether Clinton's misdeeds were sufficient to trigger impeachment and removal from office, we believe that the House managers failed to make their case."

From Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times:
"The impeachment trial is over and the vote to acquit was the proper verdict. As we said from the start, President Clinton's campaign of lies to cover up his sexual exploitation of Monica Lewinsky constituted small, tawdry, pathetic, personal crimes that did not threaten our democracy." [underline added]

From the Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times:
"There was no surprise to the end of the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. The Senate voted against conviction, as expected, and against turning Clinton out of office."[underline added]

From the Chicago Tribune:
"It has been widely predicted that Republicans will pay dearly in the 2000 elections for overzealously pursuing the removal of a popular Democratic president for offenses that most Americans considered essentially private and definitely not substantial. [ ][underline added]

And pay they may, especially if independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his prosecutorial posse persist in their holy war, reminding people of just how relentlessly obnoxious and scary a Republican with subpoena power can be." [underline added]

From the Detroit Free Press:
"And now it's Kenneth Starr's turn. Between the philandering president and the obsessed prosecutor, it is the prosecutor who has been the greater threat to the values of the republic. [underline added]

Now it's time to shut down the inquisition, write finis to the tawdry drama, and send Starr himself back into the private sector, where he can console himself with million-dollar fees from the clients and associates who have long hoped he could bring down Bill Clinton."

From The Dallas Morning News:
"The U.S. Senate's gathering at noon Friday lacked the dramatic suspense that surrounded Andrew Johnson's narrow escape from impeachment in 1868. There were clear signs all week that the Senate would not remove President William Jefferson Clinton from office on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice. Perhaps the only surprise was that neither charge gained a majority of guilty votes." [underlines added]

From The Times-Picayune of New Orleans:
"After his acquittal, President Clinton committed himself to the ''work of serving our nation and building our future together.""

And that he has (for those whose hatred goes back to the draft and not inhaling, er, um, I think Dubya out-stripped him on this ).

 

[Skyhunter]

I third it! I couldn't vote in '04 cause I was only 16 however, I would have voted for Bush because the the alternetive was worse.
It was a choice between Twidle dee or twiddle dum. And Twidle Dee was stupid in my general direction of choice so I supported him.

I hope you spend time informing yourself and have a more comprehensive opinion of the candidates in 2008.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

 

[SOS2008]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

Seems there was an incoherent rant, and then Geniere quoted me instead of edward, and I’m trying to be enlightened — maybe everyone has been drinking, being the weekend and all.

 

[GENIERE]

I've got no clue what kat, Ivan and Geniere mean when they that Cinton was impeached.

Yes, he went through impeachment proceedings (as did Johnson and Nixon), but no, he was not impeached...right ? Or am I - like SOS - missing a technicality here ?

Johnson was impeached, Nixon wasn't impeached, Clinton was impeached!

The house by a simple majority found sufficient evidence to pass the articles of impeachment v. defendant Clinton. As I stated it is a similar to the indictment of a common criminal. Thus Clinton was impeached by the House then made to appear before the Senate for trial.

 

[Gokul43201]

Johnson was impeached, Nixon wasn't impeached, Clinton was impeached!
The house by a simple majority found sufficient evidence to pass the articles of impeachment v. defendant Clinton. As I stated it is a similar to the indictment of a common criminal. Thus Clinton was impeached by the House then made to appear before the Senate for trial.

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.

PS : Here's a link and an exerpt :

With closing arguments completed, the Senate began three days of closed-door deliberations on the two articles of impeachment, with each senator limited to 15 minutes of speaking time. Senate Democrats had attempted, but failed, to open this process to the public via television.

On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

 

[SOS2008]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

Correct about the House versus the impeachment trial and ultimate conviction by the Senate. Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was impeached. Nixon resigned before being convicted. Now can we get back to impeachment of Bush/Cheney?

 

[GENIERE]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?

And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.

Jeeez, He left before the impeachment proceedings began, ignoring the possibility they may not have begun, nor was a conviction by the senate a certainty. Whatever, no one, not even the president can quit while the process was underway.

NO! NO! Like all you have to do is read the Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Clinton was impeached (indicted) by the House and later acquitted by the Senate (Jury). His acquittal does not negate the fact that he was impeached. OJ Simpson was indicted for murder and later acquitted by a jury. Does his acquittal erase from history the fact that he was indicted.

A person reading history books 200 years from now will discover that Johnson and Clinton were impeached and that Nixon was not impeached.

 

[Skyhunter]

But the Senate overturned the decision by the House, no ?
And Nixon quit (during impeachment proceedings) when it became clear what the outcome was going to be.
PS : Here's a link and an exerpt :
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

Nixon resigned before the accusation was formulated, whatever that means in US law. I think the technicality is that the House had not brought formal charges, although one might argue that impeachment proceedings had definitely already begun.

Clinton and Johnson were both impeached, tried, and acquitted.

Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

 

[SOS2008]

Nixon resigned before the accusation was formulated, whatever that means in US law. I think the technicality is that the House had not brought formal charges, although one might argue that impeachment proceedings had definitely already begun.
Clinton and Johnson were both impeached, tried, and acquitted.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.

 

[Skyhunter]

Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.

Exactly. Just like indictment, it means that a formal accusation has been made. Legally there is a point where the indictment, is made formal.

Impeachment is for a trial by the Senate to remove a president from office. Indictment is for a criminal trial.

Nixon wasn't technically impeached, he resigned because he knew that if tried, he would not be acquitted.

 

[GENIERE]

...impeachment then means nothing.

If the law of the land, the US Constitution, means nothing than you are correct. I thought the `founders’ would have omitted items of little consequence.

Never the less, spin it as you may, Clinton was impeached.

Re: Nixon, the House never voted on “The Articles of Impeachment” referred to the floor by the Committee by a 23-17 vote, hardly a convincing majority. Many committee recommendations go to the floor with negative results. We will never know what the vote may have been.

I witnessed first hand the national tumult caused by the desire to impeach a president. I had to fire an engineer who could not unglue his eyes from a TV tuned to the Congressional hearings in the employee lounge. It serves no good purpose to impeach a president for the reasons thus far used.

Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.


.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you really believe the only thing Dubya has done wrong is be an idiot or jerk?

He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be?

All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution.

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.

So, again, the fact: two presidents were impeached: Clinton and Johnson.

 

[Mercator]

You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.

 

[Mercator]

Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.
.

Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.

 

[SOS2008]

He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be? All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors.".

This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter. But I agree all this talk about Clinton is pointless in that Whitewater does not compare to Watergate, and certainly not to misuse of our military that has resulted in loss of nearly 2,000 American lives so far.

Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution. Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.

Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.

You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.

True.

 

[russ_watters]

This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter.

And yet, I'm still waiting... Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws?

Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.

Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!

Smurf, I don't fault you for not knowing - it is a subtlety and a great many people missed it at first when it happened. But now that you do know, don't assume everyone else is making the same mistake.

 

[edward]

In essence Clintons impeachment became irrelevant the moment he was acquitted. Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?

The charges against Clinton were for lying about something most men would lie about. The whole multimillion dollar witch hunt was aimed at finding anything on Clinton, not a specific incident. When nothing could be found in the area of the original investigation, Kenneth Starr was allowed to move on to another, then another.

Neither Bush or his Administration could stand up to that kind of in depth scrutiny and I mean in depth scrutiny. Cheney was allowed to keep secret the names of the persons who attended his "national energy policy meeting". The administation even opposed having a 9/11 commission. Hell eveything is a secret in the Bush administration.

But when the effects of the secrets start to adversly affect true national security and violate federal law, as in the Plame incident, it is time to pull off the veil and take a close look at the truth.

Sadly that will never happen. Every thing this administration has done has been carfully and deliberately wrapped in secrecy and cloaked with the flag.

The Bush administration has removed from the public domain millions of pages of information on health, safety, and environmental matters, lowering a shroud of secrecy over many critical operations of the federal government.

The administration's efforts to shield the actions of, and the information held by, the executive branch are far more extensive than has been previously documented. And they reach well beyond security issues.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/secrecy.htm

The Bush Administration has even coverd it's behind for the future by changing The Presidential records Act.

Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity."

Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

Other critics voiced concern about the impact of the order "in the post-September 11 world," with its wartime atmosphere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31

Even historians will be blocked from ever finding what was within the vast secrecy of the Bush administration.

 

[russ_watters]

Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?

Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why.

And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.

edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

edit2: ...and if there is good enough evidence of it, and with his popularity low, Republicans in Congress will abandon him if they think it'll help them retain their seats.

 

[Informal Logic]

Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!

So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?

Regarding the current administration - it is against international (and US law) to attack a country without provocation. The claims of WMD were pushing this envelope due to lack of clear and present danger. Then when WMD were not found, there was no question the US had violated these laws. The argument that intelligence was faulty is like arguing you did not see the signal, but you ran the red light and broke the law just the same. And of course the popular method of vindication is to change the laws (e.g., DeLay changing ethics committee rules), thus the sudden embracement of the neocon vision and the Bush Doctrine. When the world still did not buy into the legality of preemptive strikes, the reason soon became regime change, which interestingly enough also is illegal.

And like the crime of murder, there are various degrees with premeditation being the first degree. The Downing Street Memos showed premeditation to deceive congress and the American people, then inappropriately diverting funds, unnecessarily placing troops in harms way, etc., etc. Add to that the Plame leak, and you have acts of treason. And you ask why people believe there is cause for impeachment? Come on man, stop with the coy little games.

 

[edward]

Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why.
And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.
edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.

 

[Art]

If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.

I agree. It appears that some folk here are suggesting that Bush must be proven guilty before he can be impeached and tried by the senate and as folk cannot provide that proof he should be left alone.

I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.

There is certainly widespread suspicion and circumstantial evidence that a crime has been committed so I'd have thought that following precedent it is now time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and report to congress to see if Bush should be impeached.

 

[russ_watters]

So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?

Because that would be a delusion. Since conviction automatically means removal, for someone to say that Clinton was convicted would be the same as saying he was removed from office, and clearly he wasn't.

It's a catch-22: a Republican simply can't use the word incorrectly when talking about Clinton because if he doesn't know the definition, he wouldn't use the word because he'd believe he would be incorrect to use it and if he knows the definition, he'd be right to use it!

If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.

I agree.

That is exactly my point.

Props to both of you for being forthcoming about that.

I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.

Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?

Democrats in power?

Where?

If Bush is to be impeached, it will be because of what is revealed by Fitzgerald's investigation, which in turn might lead to some Republicans gaining a conscience and sense of duty to their country and launching a more widespread investigation into the conduct of this administration.

Democrats can not even have a Congressional hearing let alone an investigation into the Downing Street memo. They are certainly not going to be allowed to bring articles of impeachment against Bush.

What do you suggest they do?

Use their 5 minutes or whatever when they can address the congress on any topic to call for investigations?

There are currently no legal grounds that I am aware of to impeach Bush. This, IMO would change if Congress would launch an investigation. Even though many would say it is a waste, even nailing them for obstructing justice would be a blow for justice. There is a difference of many degrees between trying to hide an extra-marital affair, and trying to cover up the outing of a covert operative. Obstructing justice, when the crime is possibly treason is orders of magnitude more injurious to the Nation.

The whole issue of impeachment is tied to A Republican prosecutor and what he and the Grand jury have discovered.

[edit]My mistake, Fitzgerald is apolitical, I heard that when he found out that "Independent" was a political party he declined to register as an independent.[/edit]

 

[GENIERE]

Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.

Well I always believe Al Jazeerah!

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/Feb/1%20o/The%20Verdict%20on%20Jupp,%20Arab%20News.htm

“…If however the president seeks to protect himself by protecting his political protégé Juppé, their patience may well run out. A rescue attempt for Juppé would further compromise Chirac himself and increase the already strong probability of indictment if he leaves the Elysée at the next election in 2007 when he is 74. On the other hand, if he now leaves well enough alone, pressure for prosecution may ease in the next three years…”

 

[SOS2008]

Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws? Huh?

Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:

1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).

2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.

3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.

4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.

An explanation of the grounds for impeachment was given in a recent memo to Rep. Conyers from attorney Bonifaz. Among the preliminary formal charges made against the Bush administration as proposed by Clark include the following allegations that:

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;
1) President Bush violated various sections of the United States Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2) President Bush committed crimes relating to "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments;"
3) President Bush has concealed "information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;" and
4) President Bush has caused or is responsible for assassinations, torture, and indefinite detentions such as the Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay and other such matters including the persecution of U.S. and non-U.S. Muslims.
5) President Bush has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on numerous occassions with the prohibitive measures on any protests or marches by the people of the United States.

Many activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

A number of legislators, journalists, bloggers and citizen activist groups see the heretofore secret Downing Street memo as proof that Bush was willingly and knowingly untruthful about Iraq's possession of WMDs, and had lied in the year (2002) leading up to the Iraqi Invasion of 2003, and that the president intentionally planned to invade Iraq regardless of the whether or not Iraq has any such weapons. Congressional democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. The minority party does not have subpoenas power, and therefore cannot force the production of documents.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special prosecutor investigating the Plame affair has subpoenaed phone records made from Air Force One, and the court filings in support of these subpoena's have alleged "serious breaches of security." The closeness of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the president and vice-president respectively has led Frank Rich to draw comparisons to Watergate in recent columns.

Official Democratic Party organizations, including the DCCC and the DSCC have used phrases such as "worse than Watergate" and accusing Bush and the Republicans of "abuse of power". The latter phrase is significant because "abuse of power" was the meaning attached to the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution's impeachment standard by the Congress in the Impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. To date, neither organization has endorsed impeachment explicitly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:
1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).
2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.
3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.
4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges
Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.

On the international front, you have the http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm" Which was used to prosecute people like Tojo after WWII for crimes against peace.

And we all know what happened to the Japanese 'Class A' War criminals ...

Get the rope.

Oh, and you will notice Kellogg-Briand originated with the President of the USA and has never been repealed as a treaty.

 

[polyb]

I guess I need to stick in my two cents!

Russ, you have asked for specific charges and here they are according to Clark:

Articles of Impeachment
of
President George W. Bush
and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

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 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

This list does not even include what Fitzgerald will probably lay on this administration. So you can guess that list does get longer. BTW, outing Plame could carry the death penalty! That was a law enacted by Bush Sr. It is a strange small world up there in D.C, isn't it?

My suggestion would be to not put any faith in politicians, if they didn't have that wealth behind them they would all probably be petty criminals.

Oh yeah, who cares what Clinton did? How is that even remotely relevent? IMHO, it only provides a partisan distraction to the matter at hand!

We'll have to wait and see what the specific charges will actually be when it does come to pass!

This has been a long time coming!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oh, yes ... and what was the CIA doing in Italy kidnapping people, chucking them on a plane and spiriting them off to Egypt for 'Extrordianry Rendition'?

Doncha' love that phrase? :!)

Let's see ... Clinton = BJ ... Bush = Kidnap and torture.

Anybody here see the difference? One requires a handywipe and a 'Shout' Sachet the other a firing squad.

 

[Informal Logic]

And there is a possiblity of a civil suit by the Wilsons.

 

[Astronuc]

I read the list of charges at votetoimpeach.org, and most are pretty weak, particularly the violations of international law. The question is whether they fall under the definition of an impeachable offense.

As for violations "First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments", technically they only apply to US citizens, especially after the Patriot act.

I would agree that the Bush Administration has subverted the Constitution.

The indefinite detention and torture certainly would seem to be grounds for impeachable offenses - they would seem to constitute high crimes.

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.

Congress produced the legislation and the President signed it. Congress would have to impeach itself if they went after Bush for that. Actually, I think Congress should resign en masse, and no incumbent should run for office in 2006+.

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Actually another congress person has mentioned this.

As for torture, assassination, kidnapping, . . . Bush does not have a declaration of war from congress, so technically the US is not at war. On the other hand, like so many times in the past, the US government has military and paramilitary (mercenary) units in Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of paramilitary is very problematic because they do things outside the law, such as kidnapping and torture, and that seems to be endorsed by the Bush administration since they set it up.

 

[Skyhunter]

I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.

The reason Clinton's impeachment is being brought up is because the republican talking points are that perjury and obstruction of justice are secondary charges to justify 2 years of investigations that lead to nothing. Unfortunately for them their statements during the Clinton impeachment are exactly the opposite.

 

[SOS2008]

I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.

This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.

Bingo.

Activism by the voting public will get results, especially leading into an election year. Look at how fast they backed off of PBS when a petition received over a million signatures in 24 hours. (a record)

Writing or emailing your representative, is extremely important, it helps them to know what their constituency is concerned about. Even when they do what you want, let em know, having the support of your constituents makes it easier for elected officials to take tough positions, because they know it is what the people they represent want.

My representatives are Congresswoman Barbara Lee, (The only member of Congress to vote against invading Afghanistan) Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. My guess is that they will support a move to impeach.
I still let them know what I think at least once a week. Especially Dianne, I agree with her less than with the other two.

I for one will participate November 2nd in "The World Can't Wait for 2008! Drive out the Bush Regime!" protests.

If you want to find out what Bushco has been up to, write/email your representatives and demand a little congressional oversight!

If you want to demonstrate your seriousness, don't go to work or school on November 2nd.

This is still our government, let's take back control. If we exercise the "of the people, by the people" aspects of our government the "for the people" aspect will be returned.

 

[Skyhunter]

Where have all the Red States gone?

http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

I am not sure that running away from Bush is going to help the Republicans much in the mid-terms. It appears that the American people have figured out that the Emperor really is naked. It won't take much to show them that the Republican controlled Congress has been complicit in Bush's agenda, and has failed to provide oversight.

Pelosi is saying that the House won't impeach if the Dem's gain a majority. I believe that will change early in 2007, as soon as Congress starts exercising it's subpoena power and the sordid details of the lies told to engage us in this tragedy in Iraq become common knowledge. When the people learn the truth they will demand justice.

A Democratic House will vote to impeach. I think that the mood of the Country will compel a super majority of Senators to vote for removal from office.

 

[Rach3]

http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

Err, there are no county-level approval polls! That map looks highly suspect.

 

[russ_watters]

That's an estimate constructed by combining election results with that recent poll, Rach3.

 

[Rach3]

You mean they used an approval poll to make that map?

edit: Apparently that's exactly what the idiot did. Someone tell all the fundamentalists who've turned against Bush, they are now statistically considered Democrats.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to be clear, I didn't say it has any meaning, I just said that's how he did it. I think the author knows it is meaningless, too - he doesn't claim any meaning for it on that page, just explains how he made it. So I must conclude that the only meaning it has is that Democrats prefer the color blue to the color red. And blue being my favorite color - I like it too.

It would be cool, though, if he could make one plaid.

 

[Astronuc]

How about purple with yellow pokadots, or green with orange pokadots?

 

[mathwonk]

normally i dislike talking politics because no one ever agrees about it, but i cannot stay silent any longer.

As a former demonstrator for civil rights who was threatened by racists and beaten by police in the 1960's for opposing segregation and the war in Vietnam, it is more than embarrassing to me for the US be asked by the UN to close our prisons in guantanamo and to stop rendering people away to foreign sites where they may be tortured.

Under this government we have become essentially the people we claim to oppose. This government is indeed the Taliban of the US.

I think George Bush is the worst president in my memory, and I never thought I would say that after Nixon.

This president has done more to diminish the moral authority of the US in the world than anyone has done in the last maybe 100 years. I clearly understand how and why people in other countries hate us after this. Even right wing conservative Republicans have turned against this clown on the issue of wiretapping.

This is not as serious, but now he is going to empanel a committee to study math education in the US. That's all we need, a complete moron who cannot even speak English competently, taking over math education. Under his idiotic "no child left behind" crieteria, the most talented and accomplished students I have ever had cannot be hired as teachers because the criteria are designed for imbeciles.

The only thing he espouses that I agree with is the right of emigrants, even illegal ones, who contribute to our society, to become citizens. Please turn out and vote this gang of evil idiots out of office as soon as possible. It is not enough just to argue about it online.

 

[Curious3141]

normally i dislike talking politics because no one ever agrees about it, but i cannot stay silent any longer.

As a former demonstrator for civil rights who was threatened by racists and beaten by police in the 1960's for opposing segregation and the war in Vietnam, it is more than embarrassing to me for the US be asked by the UN to close our prisons in guantanamo and to stop rendering people away to foreign sites where they may be tortured.

Under this government we have become essentially the people we claim to oppose. This government is indeed the Taliban of the US.

I think George Bush is the worst president in my memory, and I never thought I would say that after Nixon.

This president has done more to diminish the moral authority of the US in the world than anyone has done in the last maybe 100 years. I clearly understand how and why people in other countries hate us after this. Even right wing conservative Republicans have turned against this clown on the issue of wiretapping.

This is not as serious, but now he is going to empanel a committee to study math education in the US. That's all we need, a complete moron who cannot even speak English competently, taking over math education. Under his idiotic "no child left behind" crieteria, the most talented and accomplished students I have ever had cannot be hired as teachers because the criteria are designed for imbeciles.

The only thing he espouses that I agree with is the right of emigrants, even illegal ones, who contribute to our society, to become citizens. Please turn out and vote this gang of evil idiots out of office as soon as possible. It is not enough just to argue about it online.

Thanks for your candid views mathwonk. What puzzles me is that this clown managed to get elected to a second term of office. Obviously, he must have support, and it's not just from a fringe group of crazies, it must be from a large group (even a majority) of the people. How can people be so misguided?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thanks for your candid views mathwonk. What puzzles me is that this clown managed to get elected to a second term of office. Obviously, he must have support, and it's not just from a fringe group of crazies, it must be from a large group (even a majority) of the people. How can people be so misguided?

His rabid supporters and rabid foes deadlocked and left the decision to a small group of pretty dim voters who never pay attention and are driven by rules of thumb like "Never change horses in the middle of the stream". But in the last two years things have got so bad even those folks have noticed.

That and the GOP stalwarts in the states did everything they could think of to deny the vote to as many inner city people as they could, and they were damned effective at it, especially in Florida and Ohio.

 

[SOS2008]

This articles discusses the current WH strategy, which is to focus on the 2006 elections. The reason is because Bush's approval ratings cannot be changed short of a miracle in Iraq, and if even the House goes to the Dems, there may be enough balance of power to demand accountability and oversight, which of course the Bush cabal does not want to face.

Though this could also be under the "Can Bush Win Back Approval" thread, here is an article today on the general topic:

"Midterm elections crux of GOP strategy
Bush aides look to November vote as way to reverse precipitous slide" - Washington Post, May 21 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12905785/

It is highly unlikely the situation in Iraq will improve any time soon, and certainly not before November. And I suspect Bush will "stay the course" and not begin an exist strategy--he is still "urging for patience." Even if Osama bin Laden was caught, as long as the Iraq quagmire continues, it would only result in a temporary spike in approval ratings. The reason Americans do not see the economy in a positive light is because of inflation versus income, most notably gas prices. And once again, the increasingly high costs of housing, health care, education, etc. cannot be resolved anytime soon. The additional tax cuts will not heal this wound, and may even cause fiscal conservatives to become more angry.

Social conservatives have achieved their main goal--two more conservative judges in the Supreme Court. Many social and traditional Republicans (especially neocons) will remain supportive of the invasion of Iraq, but are not supportive of Bush's illegal immigration solution, particularly the "guest worker" program -- or his energy plan. Most no longer care for Bush, and believe he will go down in history as a poor president.

At this point, aside from my house rep. JD Hayworth (R), I will vote for Democrats or Libertarians only. In my opinion the Republican party should be renamed the Theocratic party. In the meantime, I wish liberals and moderates would get to the polls, and conservatives would take time to learn the issues and not just vote the party line.

 

[edward]

After doing nothing about the border situation during his entire presidency, Bush all of a sudden "steals the headlines" from Iraq and transplants them in the southwest, which is a good example of what we can expect to see prior to the upcoming elections. Yet the announced actions at the border is all fluff and no substance.

It is not just Bush, this administration is so full of sophisticated sleaze like Rove , that I can't believe it.

 

[Gokul43201]

After doing nothing about the border situation during his entire presidency, Bush all of a sudden "steals the headlines" from Iraq and transplants them in the southwest, which is a good example of what we can expect to see prior to the upcoming elections. Yet the announced actions at the border is all fluff and no substance.

It's a winning strategy...one I saw coming for over a fortnight. Did you see how the approval ratings jumped after his immigration speech ?

I honestly think it's not hard at all to win back a strong rating. Just wait and watch...I think it's starting to happen already.

 

[turbo]

There will be more of this before the election. Laura is already playing "good cop" and is "urging" Bush to not used gay marriage as a campaign issue. Yeah, right! She just happens to be the most popular member of the campaign team and she will be used to float the sensitive issues to elicit reactions from the electorate. Maybe next she will talk about how important it is for the government (our taxes) to support "charitable work" being done by religious groups, and about how it would be nice to see ID presented "fairly" in schools. If you are a real cynic, you might wonder what Nixon would have done with the phone call records, emails, and Internet searches of hundreds of millions of people, especially going into what looks like a tough mid-term election for his party. Bush does not want to be impeached and he, Rove, and the dirty-tricks team will do whatever they think they can get away with to keep control ouf the House, at least in the short term. At the end of the Bush administration there will be pardons all around, including for Skilling, Lay and deLay.

 

[SOS2008]

It's a winning strategy...one I saw coming for over a fortnight. Did you see how the approval ratings jumped after his immigration speech ?

I honestly think it's not hard at all to win back a strong rating. Just wait and watch...I think it's starting to happen already.

I'm not sure what approval ratings you are referring to. All the news articles I've seen today make reference to Bush's numbers still sagging in the 30s.

True, some Repubs will be taken in with Bush's tokenism, such as sending a measly 6,000 unarmed Nat'l Guard to provide logistical support at the border. But those with any real understanding of the long-term repercussions of amnesty and/or a guest worker program know better. Here's an article hot off the press about Bush's housekeeper:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12892962/site/newsweek/

Bush's parents also had a housekeeper/nanny from Mexico. The only people Bush knows who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps," who he admires so much are illegals. He has since done a great deal for such people, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who recently told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "it's unclear" whether his grandparents emigrated legally from Mexico. I guess this is the only exposure to "self-made success" a rich boy with a silver spoon in his mouth has ever seen. If only he had the same supposed compassion for legal American citizens who also work hard to feed their families. This "human interest" approach only appeals to other elites and misguided liberals. The majority of Americans who are in the trenches will not accept double standards or tokenism on this issue.

In general, Americans have formed their opinion of Bush, and these little things won't have a significant impact. What Congress does, now that's another matter.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what approval ratings you are referring to. All the news articles I've seen today make reference to Bush's numbers still sagging in the 30s.

I saw it on the news, but after a quick Google search...

CNN (5/5/06) : 34%
CNN (5/17/06) : 36%

CBS (5/8/06) : 31%
CBS (5/17/06) : 35%

However,

FOX (5/3/06) : 38%
FOX (5/17/06) : 35%

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm