Dems: Bush Has Broken 26 Statutes (from TPMmuckraker.com)

[Mabus]

EXCLUSIVE: Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statutes, Dems Say
By Justin Rood - July 31, 2006, 1:53 PM

The Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations -- some of them multiple times -- according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats.

"The misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread," reads a draft summary of the report by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI):

The laws implicated by the Administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress ; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment.

The document, an update to the Democrats' December 2005 report, "A Constitution in Crisis," will be released later this week, according to knowledgeable sources. It is several hundred pages long, with over a thousand footnotes.

more at: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001238.php

[Nickster]

1. Good stuff! Keep it coming Mr. Chairman (well...soon at least.) n/t

[Mabus]

2. More ammo for the next time I call Sen. Pat Roberts' office

and ask about his (intelligence) committee's report that is long overdue.

[htuttle]

3. Wonder how many of them were felonies?

[Mabus]

7. We'll have to wait for the citations

that way we'll know which laws the report is citing and whether or not the particular elements of each were met.

[Demeter]

20. I Think The Felonies Are Extra

You get more for your money at BushCo.

[sutz12]

29. We don't need felonies

High crimes and misdemeanors are enough. :)

[hang a left]

33. What are High Crimes???

I always thought they would be felonies.

[Mabus]

35. Crimes against the state

was always my understanding of the phrase. I had Con Law before the impeachment hearings so it Art. II wasn't really covered to the extent that it was during and has since the proceedings against Clinton.

on edit: I mean to say that my understanding of the phrase is that it is a crime or crimes tantamount to treason. This encompasses things like outing CIA agents, misuing government resources for personal & political gain, pretty much what the Bush Administration has done since 11/7/2000.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. And the tide rolls in...

[Mabus]

8. presumably the report references materials of things we *know* about

Who knows what they are still doing behind closed doors that hasn't come to light yet.

[welshTerrier2]

5. 27 if you include that one of Saddam he pulled down ...

those Iraqis were paid by the US Government ...

oh wait, you said statutes ... OK, never mind ...

my kudos to Emily ...

[bvar22]

19. *

[welshTerrier2]

26. nice!

a good hearty chuckle!! thanks so much ...

[stevedeshazer]

34. Love that image

May it really come true.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Can't wait for its release! Like awaiting the final Harry Potter book!

[sofa king]

49. Then it's time to make embarassing predictions!

I predict that one of the statutes which will not be mentioned is the Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reorganization Act of 1986.

The President has flagrantly violated a minor but crucially important facet of that Act, which requires that the President annually publish a public National Security Strategy. To date, the Bush Administration has published exactly one, in 2002.

To add insult to this, the Bush Administration has started an entire war, declared "mission accomplished," and then watched the entire region go to hell without ever publishing a new National Security Strategy. Not only do they really not have a plan for Iraq and the rest of the world, but it's against the fucking law not to have a plan. It's such a blatant and basic violation of the law that it hurts.

Failure to publish a NSS in ca. 1993 by President Clinton was carefully considered by Congressional Republicans as grounds for impeachment and as a pretense for a power grab at the Executive Branch--until more prurient opportunities arose.

Yet for whatever reason, nobody in Congress or elsewhere wishes to confront this most obvious transgression, and I don't think Conyers has the stones to do it either.

I think that learning why that is will be a key to unraveling the tangle of corruption within the federal government.

Oh, and I really hope I'm wrong.

[eShirl]

9. ahh, a list of high crimes and misdemeanors

[stubtoe]

10. Impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach

Congressional republicans need to WAKE UP, join the Democrats and start the proceedings NOW. Waiting till after the elections (and presumably a shift to Democratic control) is no option.

[Beelzebud]

11. So remind me why democrats aren't lining up for censure/impeachment?

[htuttle]

12. 'Cause the President's so popular?

No, that can't be it...

Because the war is popular?

No, that can't be it either...


I dunno. Good question. :shrug:

[hootinholler]

16. Good One!

I'd be :rofl: if I wasn't :cry:

-Hoot

[Thoreau-Ly]

17. Jellyfish Taking Over Entire Ecosystems?

Cowardly spineless motherfuckers.

'Scuse the French.

[alfredo]

18. Because the fascist that control the house won't even let it be discussed.

[Mabus]

23. Only acts of moral turpitude are impeachable offenses

Little things like treason and undermining the goverment are trivial compared to violations of moral issues. :sarcasm:

[Amonester]

27. Because the lobbyists paid by BigOil & the MIC said their clients...

Will not issue any checks to any Democratic Party's candidate if any of 'em ever line up for that.

Pretty easy to find out why if you ask me. :grr:

Simple. Exxon-Mob-ill said: "no." :mad:

[sutz12]

30. The election...

Coming out now will just energize his base and scare away the moderates.

[autorank]

13. K&R...Thank you Rep. Conyers - no doubts on this at all. n/t

[chill_wind]

14. Conyers and Waxman

have been scrupulously catalogueing the crimes and diligently building the scaffolding with which to eventually try this WH and their other adminstrative key Congressional accomplices for those crimes and abuses, for a long long time. Two Dems thoroughly committed to the truth and eventual justice I still hope will come. I hope, too, that many good historical books will be written about both of them one day.

[brer cat]

21. And that is key. They have been very patient

as well as thorough cataloging the crimes. It would be so easy to shrug and say "What can we do? We're dems in a repuke controlled world." It takes courage and vision to plow ahead against such odds. I can only be reminded of the JFK quote: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not." John Conyers has a dream and I believe in the end he will prevail, and it will a testament to his personal courage, values, and commitment to the American people that he has sworn to serve.

[PurpleChez]

24. The quote is from RFK. Sorry to be a noodge.

Or is that spelled nudge? Then you couldn't tell it from wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Oh well....

[Mabus]

31. Wasn't he quoting George Bernard Shaw?

I did a search just now and came up with the quote originating with Shaw. http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3143

on edit: "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." --- George Bernard Shaw

Does this make me a bigger nudge?

another confirmation and it does appear that JFK used the same quote in a speech in 1963.

Undetermined quotation: "Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why'? I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not'?" Robert Kennedy made this quotation famous during his 1968 Presidential campaign, often using it as a kind of slogan, although we have not identified it in a written text. In its original form, the quotation was said by the serpent in George Bernard Shaw's play Back to Methuselah, and was used by President Kennedy in his Speech to the Irish Parliament on June 28, 1963: "Speaking as an Irishman summed up an approach to life: 'Other people,' he said, 'see things and say: why - but I dream things that never were and say: why not.'" http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Quotations+of+Robert+F.+Kennedy.htm

[brer cat]

32. Well, I was the first nudge for sure. lol

The quote that I remember was from Sen. Edward Kennedy at RFK's funeral, not JFK's. Prior to that I'm not sure.

[PurpleChez]

39. I bet it's true.

A quote gets misattributed one place and it just spreads, like all of the MP3s of "Stuck in the Middle with You" labeled as being sung by the Grateful Dead. And then we forget that even the most beloved and capable political leaders are so often NOT responsible for the words coming out of their mouths.

[Mabus]

43. I miss the days when we articulate & educated leaders

Remember when we had articulate and educated leaders who could quote lines from poetry or plays that helped capture and frame what they were saying. I felt like when one of the Kennedy's quoted Shaw or Frost that they actually understood what they were talking about. I remember a time when our leaders could quote great works and still reach the common man. In fact, the American people were proud of how our leaders could find just the right words, whatever its source and how they could deliver the lines with such passion that they could fire the imaginations of the people. Imagine Dumbya trying to quote Shaw, it would be so inconsistent with his nature as to be comical. Nowadays all we get is "freedom" and "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here". It is just so sad how far the discourse in America has fallen.

[PurpleChez]

44. It is sad that the chimp's "strength" is that he appeals to stupidity

and anti-intellectualism, that he revels in that fact, and that a good swatch of the population buys it as a sign that he is "genuine." History is gonna laugh at us, if it can stop crying.

[Mabus]

45. It started (for me) with Reagan

and his mispronouncation of Albert Camus' name. He had no clue who he was quoting and even less of a clue of what he was saying. :banghead:

At least we have places like DU. Surely at some point in the future people will look back and marvel at the intelligence of the people who spoke out against the tyranny we've unleashed upon the world and wonder WTF was going on with the so-called leadership.

[L0oniX]

50. I have proof that Bush is a chimp

http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics2.html

:hippie:

[midnight]

36. If the congress and the senate

are sworn into office to uphold the constitution why are Waxman and Conyers the only two articulating the illegal behavior by our selected leaders.

[unblock]

15. great! looks like we'll be rid of him by january 20, 2009!

oh....

[orleans]

22. k&r & bookmarked. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Jeez! Let's impeach him already! Impeach the whole cabal!

[NewJeffCT]

28. and how much coverage will this get?

outside of DU, Kos, TPM, and a few blogs. not much, I'm guessing.

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Did Conyers include the Rape of California by Enron.?W, aided that

when he rolled back price caps and instructed the FERC to ignore Calfornia's please for help.

[Mabus]

40. We'll find out when the report is finally released later this week

Until then any speculation as to what the report will cite as evidence of these crimes is speculation. If the raping of California isn't included in the report then we should e-mail Rep. Conyers and ask it to be included or ask why it wasn't.

I also wonder if the derelictions of duty that Bush and Co. have perpetrated will be included. Incidents such as ignoring the 2001 PDB and early warnings of the extent of Katrina's damage should be (imho) crimes against humanity. If either of us were aware of imminent dangers around our home and we ignored them or refused to warn or otherwise mitigate the possibility of damages than we would be considered negligent. Bush has a duty, as pResident, to protect the United States and its citizens and he has failed at every turn. How many Americans have died on American soil because this arrogant slacker resides in the People's House?

edited to correct a spelling error.

[unpossibles]

38. I imagine the freeps will be very excited to prosecute

since they are so adamant about law-breaking, what with all the huffing about illegal aliens and Clinton's BJ and everything! It's good to see this, knowing they will join in! America can finally be united, so perhaps Bush IS a uniter, not a dividicator.

Welcome, Freepers! I will look forward to a healthy discussion of how breaking laws is inherently bad.

[eviltwin2525]

41. ITMFA!

[fordnut]

42. i wonder if they will indeed

Impeach this sorry s.o.b i sure hope they do this man needs to
be out of Office

[Pierre.Suave]

46. This Document

is on my "must read" list.

If anyone knows where I can find it, or has a link to share, please feel free.

[Pierre.Suave]

47. I found a .pdf of the summary

if anyone wants to read it. It appears the full 370 page document will be out later.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/releases/conincrisisarticle.pdf

[Mabus]

48. That's the one! Thanks for the link to the summary

I can't wait for the full report.

:hi:

[Pierre.Suave]

52. You're welcome

I cant wait either.

[Blue_Tires]

51. ttt !!