Call is out to impeach Bush

[Marleyb]

google conyers and enjoy...articles about the conyer's hearing abound...

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman, a prominent legal scholar and a self-described target of government surveillance urged Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday to consider impeaching President George W. Bush for his domestic surveillance program.

The recommendation by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., law scholar Jonathan Turley and Florida-based political activist Richard Hersh emerged at an unofficial Judiciary Committee hearing staged entirely by Democrats.

Nadler, a senior Democrat on the committee's panel on the Constitution, called for the Republican-led committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review.

Hersh, 59, testified that he learned in a Pentagon report unearthed last year by NBC News that he had been the target of government surveillance during participation in a meeting at the Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., in 2004.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060121/NEWS07/601210321/1009
(not free republic)

[Cary]

1. No chance, sadly.

If we have a Democratic House there is no chance that he won't be impeached, IMHO. You can thank House Republicans for that fine legacy.

[Marleyb]

2. sorry, that is UNACCEPTABLE!

That is the bullshit defeatest attitude that gives these traitorous bastards an excuse for doing nothing.

The constitution clearly states that Bush is to be impeached for breaking the law...end of story. I will accept nothing less.

As this poster put it....you are either with the constitution or against it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x199302

[helderheid]

12. there are MANY crimes he's commited that are impeachable but the one that

I think even the conservatives can get on board with is that he ignored separation of powers. If a Republican president decides to do that and it is allowed, it paves the way for any future president of whatever party to do the same and that should scare the bejeebus out of everyone.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I think this could start the proceedings

And lead into other things. And yes it's something we can all agree upon as seen by Bob Barr.

[Cary]

13. You can go on thinking Republicans would go along with it.

No attitude is going to make them do it though. We have to win the House this year. What's defeatist about that?

[AngryOldDem]

16. Damn! I am SO sick of hearing that!

When are people -- here out in the boondocks as well as within the Beltway -- going to wake up to the simple fact that this goes beyond party lines?

The Constitution is dying a slow and painful death and the answer always is...nope, sorry, no way we can save it because of the makeup of Congress.

Bullshit. Just bullshit. Even if impeachment charges are brought up and go nowhere; even if all it boils down to is talk...that is something. It means that somebody out there, like Nagler, cares to keep this illegal cabal's actions in the forefront. He isn't just shrugging his shoulders and walking away.

I'm no political scientist, and I'm sure as hell not as politically savvy as most of the people here on DU. But damnnit, if Clinton's penis was enough to bring impeachment, just what will it take to hold this administration accountable for its actions?

[Cary]

18. There are 9 members of the House Judiciary Committee and

only 4 of them are Democrats. The Republicans vote in lock step. It just ain't gonna happen.

Vote in Democrats in November. That is our salvation. Otherwise, power corrupts and K Street rules.

[loudsue]

20. Diebold has NO intention of "voting in Democrats in November"

Ain't gonna happen. They might "allow" Dems to get ONE house of congress, but they will control, carefully, which Dems are elected to do that, and the resulting control will be carefully neutered. (i.e., DLCers)

This great land of ours has been taken over by a very tightly controlled, carefully run mafia. They have broken COUNTLESS laws, and many are under investigation or indictment. But the republican mafia has carefully & patiently stacked the courts with their own people. They have stacked the elections with their own vote counting machines.

It's going to take a revolution to get the mob out of our government.

:kick:

[AngryOldDem]

21. See Post #12

That answers my questions better than anything I've read here so far.

If this kind of bullshit is allowed to go on virtually unchecked, ultimately it won't make a dime's bit of difference which party has control of which house.

[Marleyb]

3. why is the progressive community backing down from impeachment?

when the corporate media is finally talking about it? Why is the only call from the progressive community leaders to 'censure' bush? Does anyone believe that the Republicans would back down from such an obvious impeachable offense??

Democrats urged to consider impeachment
WASHINGTON - A Democratic congressman, a prominent legal scholar and a self-described target of government surveillance urged Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday to consider impeaching President Bush for his domestic surveillance program.

The recommendation by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., law scholar Jonathan Turley and Florida-based political activist Richard Hersh emerged at an unofficial House Judiciary Committee hearing staged entirely by Democrats on the day that Bush's presidency began its sixth year.

Other lawmakers and witnesses at the hearing demanded an end to the secret, four-year domestic spying program by the National Security Agency, the appointment of a special prosecutor and a joint House-Senate inquiry into what they described as "a constitutional crisis."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/13677784.htm

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. No

Does anyone believe that the Republicans would back down from such an obvious impeachable offense?


We'd be weeks into impeachment hearings by now and the Corporate Media would be on it 24/7. The Hypocrite GOP knows full well that is true.

[Marleyb]

4. Investigation of warrantless eavesdropping program urged

Legal experts, privacy advocates and Democratic lawmakers on Friday called for congressional and independent investigations into whether the Bush administration broke the law by authorizing a secret program to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order.

Seven Democrats held an unofficial hearing in the basement of a House office building to examine revelations that Bush ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps.

"I want to be absolutely clear, what the president ordered in this case was a crime," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

He added that he believes Bush's order is an impeachable offense. "This type of violation should be a textbook example of an impeachment issue, because not only is it a federal crime but it violates the doctrine of separation of power," he said

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33211&dcn=todaysnews

[Marleyb]

5. Wexler: Bush's Domestic Spying Programs Must be Investigated

"Like many Americans I was shocked and appalled to learn that our nation's intelligence and military agencies have been spying on Americans at an unprecedented level without even the opportunity for legally required judicial oversight. I am deeply disturbed that the Republican leadership in Congress is turning a blind eye to these developments. And I am proud that Ranking Member Conyers and my fellow Judiciary Democrats refuse to let this silence stand unanswered.

"I am eager to hear from this distinguished panel because I can simply not understand how the Administration can justify brazenly skirting existing safeguards that were put in place after Watergate to deter wanton domestic spying on American citizens. It is outrageous that law-abiding Americans like the peace activists and retirees who make up the Truth Project in my congressional district are considered to be a credible threat to this country."

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5026

[Marleyb]

6. Representatives call NSA surveillance an illegal treat to civil liberties

House Democrats and a panel of legal experts assailed the Bush administration's secret domestic surveillance program Friday, calling it an illegal and dangerous threat to civil liberties and a presidential power grab that has thrown the country into a constitutional crisis.

"The president of the United States is violating our nation's laws by authorizing the National Security Agency to engage in warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "If we let domestic spying programs continue, if we let our president convince us that we are at war, so that he can do what he wants, we will allow to stand the principle that the president alone can decide what laws apply to him."
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/01/21nsa.html

[Marleyb]

7. Truth Project spokesman witness in D.C. on spying

Sitting in a wheelchair at the witness table Friday, Rich Hersh of Boca Raton tried to explain to a panel of congressional Democrats how his group of peace activists might be a threat.

"I think the truth is always a credible threat to illegitimate and unjust power," said Hersh, 59, spokesman for The Truth Project, a group that met in a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth to discuss nonviolent ways of countering military recruiting efforts at local high schools.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/2006/01/21/c1b_truth_0121.html

[Marleyb]

8. Spying rationale assailed

As the White House prepared to ratchet up its defense for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants, a small group of House Democrats convened legal experts and advocates in a basement hearing room to poke holes in the administration's legal rationale.

President Bush's argument that he has executive power to authorize such surveillance "flies in the face of both common sense and legal precedent," said Rep. John Conyers Jr., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who led the meeting.


"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said. "The federal law makes it clear that you cannot engage in this type of operation without committing a crime."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa21jan21,1,7619610.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

[Marleyb]

9. "Impeachment" Dominates PBS McLauglin Group Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x200540

[abluelady]

11. With the full-page ad in the Times yesterday

it is pretty impossible for MSM not to discuss impeachment. Ah, if it would only happen.

[EFerrari]

10. I was actually pissed at Al Gore for not saying "impeachment".

But, it doesn't matter who says it, as long as it gets said. This movement has been bubbling for years now AND IT'S NOT GOING AWAY.

:toast:

[ginnyinWI]

14. He needs to be forced to resign.

After watching the hearings, I've come to the conclusion that impeachment isn't enough--if it isn't complete. If it only goes through the House, as with Clinton,and he stays in office, the RW will never believe that he was guilty enough to be thrown out. He'll become a hero to them. No, he needs to be convinced that it's over, and his resignation will be as close to an admission of guilt as we'll get from him.

Ok so we have Cheny for a few years. He's already there dishing out his dirty work. I don't think we'll be in danger of his appointed VP being able to maintain the office--not will all the crap that's coming down and will continue to until the next presidential election.

[Marleyb]

17. more about the hearing in this article...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/21/MNGNEGQPIR1.DTL&feed=rss.news

"Our forefathers understood that 'trust me' was not good enough for protecting civil liberties,'' Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under Republican former President Ronald Reagan, told the Democrats' ad hoc meeting.

Fein said he believes Bush broke the law in ordering the domestic activity by the National Security Agency. He also said that because the war on terrorism is open-ended, Bush's assertion of special powers would amount to a long-term loss of civil liberties.

Asked if Bush's actions constitute the high crimes and misdemeanors sufficient for impeaching him, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he felt they did.

"If you believe the president violated criminal provisions of the law, I don't see how it wouldn't qualify. ... If the president commits a criminal act, you are obligated to hold impeachment hearings,'' Turley said.

[Marleyb]

22. Bamford Calls NSA “Rogue Agency”

“The NSA is doing something very wrong in my opinion,” Bamford tells The Washingtonian. “It’s my obligation to speak out and make the case. There has never been a time when the law has been so blatantly violated by the White House.”

Bamford spoke Friday before a House Judiciary Committee hearing called by Democrats and chaired by Detroit’s John Conyers, the committee’s ranking Democrat. With a friendly panel before a friendly audience, Bamford explained how the NSA works and argued that its expanded domestic surveillance violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bamford says he has special standing.

“When the NSA was attacked by Europeans for helping American companies, I defended it before the European Parliament,” he says. “I never saw a single indication that NSA eavesdropped on Airbus and passed it along to Boeing.

“Since I stood up for NSA and defended their actions, I’m not being inconsistent in going against the NSA when they’re being charged—fairly—with breaking the law.”

He says the NSA has become “a rogue agency.”

http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2006/0120.html