Serious question about impeachment.

[Xithras]

OK, so we want to impeach Bush. So the majority of Americans want to impeach Bush. He's done 10,000 evil things that have made us all hate him, so we can easily find something to impeach him on, right? Not so quick.

The Constitution makes it clear what a President can be removed for...the commission of a crime. We cannot remove a President simply because we don't like him, we have to find a specific crime, as defined by the AMERICAN legal system (international law isn't applicable to this specific situation), that he can be charged with. Remember, the 'Thugs jumped all over Clinton for his affair, but the actual impeachment proceedings were wholly based on his one and only actual CRIME...lying while under oath. He violated a specific federal statute, and had an impeachment trial lodged against him for it.

So now it's Bushes turn. What specific crimes, as defined by the American legal system, can we all list? Remember that only actions instigated by him personally can be levied against him...a President cannot be impeached for the crimes of others in his administration. That rules out, for example, things like illegal wiretapping (unless you have evidence that Bush directly and personally authorized it himself).

I ask this question for a reason. I was discussing impeachment with a friend earlier and we were trying to come up with specific legal things that he could be impeached for. After batting some ideas around for a while, we came to a realization...Bush seems to have been fairly adept at keeping his personal hands clean. Neither one of us could think of a single specific statute that he has violated to warrant impeachment. Pretty much every crime we came up with was ultimately traceable back to someone else in his administration. He may have ordered them to commit them at some point, but unless they come out and admit that, it would be impossible to prove.

Did we miss something? Please, if you have something, avoid generalities. I'm not looking for "He oppresses the American people", I'm looking for specific laws that were violated, which can be traced back directly to him personally.

[ThomWV]

1. Warrantless wiretaps - illegal as sunday afternoon sin

[Xithras]

3. Performed by the FBI. Not Bush.

Can't charge him with a crime committed by someone else, unless you have evidence that he directly ordered them to do it.

[ThomWV]

6. Performed by the NSA actually, but no matter - ever hear of the "Unitary Executive"?

He signed the order - ink, pen, paper. He reauthorized it many times - ink, pen, paper. The only name on the page that could approve it was George W. Bush signing in his capacity as President of the United States. Him, no one else.

[MADem]

16. "Signing statement"--the Supremes will rule it has overriding force of law.

That's why he has his guys on the court. They'll rule there was no crime.

No crime, no impeachment.

[wtmusic]

23. They wouldn't go there

SCJ Kennedy is not so insane that he thinks the president can do anything he wants, which is what this comes down to.

Bush would lose a challenge on signing statements.

[MADem]

46. They most certainly WOULD. And Kennedy has become a "more reliable conservative."

See the article quoted in post 39, below.

Don't be relying on Kennedy. He's gone with BushCo 19 out of 24 times this season alone.

Hang your hat on that guy, and you just might be looking at a constitutionally-mandated IMPERIAL Presidency.

Which is why the Democrats are moving ponderously. They see this, even though others don't.

[Sir Jeffrey]

27. So just because Nixon didn't actually break into...

the Watergate Hotel personally, he had no responsibility and was not impeachable?

Come on. The executive branch is headed by the President. If the President orders an agency to carry out illegal wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, or anything else, he is responsible for the act. Yes, the foot soldiers following orders get punished in whatever way is appropriate for average citizens, but the appropriate punishment for the President or Vice-President is impeachment and removal from office.

And btw the warrantless wiretaps were carried out by the NSA, not the FBI...although that is irrelevant since they are both under the executive branch.

[MADem]

48. You're forgetting they had tapes. And John Dean. And the potential for

conspiracy charges.

I rather doubt an Article of Impeachment accusing Nixon of "burglary" was ever prepared in any event.

Again, signing statements. Don't overlook them. This President may be wicked, but he and his crew are not stupid. And they've got the Supremes as their "Go To" guys, just in case. Those Supremes will find those signing statements override the law they're attached to, for "national security reasons," and the President's conduct was constitutional.

Alberto's Harvard education was not wasted, apparently. He ginned this shit up, with Harriet, when he was WH counsel, I'd wager.

[Sir Jeffrey]

67. But there were articles prepared against Nixon...

for other federal crimes, namely obstruction of justice and refusing to produce papers under subpoena. I don't think we disagree on this. The House of Representatives said that what he did was impeachable, and they were prepared to move.

The second part of your statement is where I think you are making a false connection. The standard for impeachment is not the commission of federal crimes. The standard for impeachment is whatever the duly elected House of Representatives says it is. If the House says that issuing signing statements in order to provide cover for your continued violations of federal law is an impeachable offense, then that is the standard. The HR says it, then passes it off to the Senate for trial. Where does the Supreme Court enter into the equation? Oh yeah, the Supreme Court comes into play if we keep dicking around and wait for them to issue a ruling on the legality of signing statements. I doubt even the Roberts Court would rule that written presidential decrees trump properly passed legislation, but I don't want to take that risk. Impeach now.

[MADem]

70. But not burglary. And I agree, you can impeach a ham sandwich for BEING a ham sandwich.

But conviction is another kettle of fish.

The trial in the Senate is run by the Chief Justice. That's where your Supremes come in, first off.

The Chief Justice can make himself "unavailable" to preside until the Supremes rule on Bush's emergency request for a decision that his, say, signing statements are legal or illegal. The Senate can't go forward at all without John Roberts.

The ruling comes down that what he did was legal. Then what happens? Do you think the Senate will convict him of a "crime" that the Supremes say is constitutional? And just supposing they DO, despite that ruling.

Bush appeals to the Supremes, and has the Senate conviction OVERTURNED. He stays where he's at.

[Sir Jeffrey]

74. I understand your point...

but it is a defeatist argument. Notice that all of your worst case scenario stuff happens after Bush gets impeached. If he wants to pull some extraordinary bullshit in order to stay in office another year and a half, and simultaneously bring his party down further into the gutter, let him. He will still go down in history as being an impeached president.

Let the Republicans embrace the unitary executive during an impeachment trial, when everyone will be paying attention to what is really going on. Let everyone see what is really happening to our country in real time. Let your average voter begin to ask "Whutsa sinin statement?" or "whuts extrodinry rendishun?" LEt everyone know that our president ran a secret global network of torture prisons. Let everyone know that the president is a felon. And, most importantly, let everyone know that the democrats did everything they could to end the war and end this assault on our democratic form of govt.

This is PRECISELY why we need impeachment. Think it through to its logical conclusion. Even the most hardened political cynic (me) can see that the worst case scenario still nets us big political gains, while doing nothing virtually guarantees that in another 12-16 years we'll have to deal with all the low level flunky leftovers from this administration creeping back into the agencies to fuck us over again...just like they did in Iran-Contra. We can't let them get away with this shit just because some bad stuff might happen or we might fail. The truth is, you and I simply don't know how bad the GOP would turn on Bush if it ever got to the Senate for trial. Remember, the GOP will be there long after Bush leaves office...and those guys like their jobs too.

[MADem]

77. Ewwww. Them's "Tony Snow" words!

It's not a 'defeatist argument,' though. It's an argument based on how I have seen this administration conduct their affairs in the past. I'm not going to do that Charlie Brown nonsense, believing that BushCo Lucy won't snatch the football away at the last possible moment. Over and over. As they do.

In fact, the first thing they did, before they even took stole the White House, was run to the Supreme Court. Now that they've packed it, they'll give it a workout if they need to. We'll need some sort of Supremes-proof Smoking Gun to obviate any of that nonsense, because if the charges allow him room to run to the Supremes for a Constitutionality opinion, we're wasting our time.

Not only might his "crimes" could well be declared legal before a trial is ever initiated in the Senate, he's not without friends in the House, either, even though there are fewer of them as days pass. He could just as easily run like hell to the Supremes for a ruling BEFORE the Articles of Impeachment even leave the House, while they're being ginned up in committee. And in that case, if he gets a favorable ruling, the House won't go forward, unless they want to look partisan and foolish.

They impeached Clinton, and Gore won. He was later robbed, but he won and we all know it. If we impeach Bush without a credible case, we could open up a can of sympathetic worms for the GOP. And they excel at dirty politics, voter suppression, and GOTV for their own side--they could milk that sympathy like a big old cow.

We don't have to wait for a critical mass of impeachment supporters, either amongst the public or in the House, to conduct investigations, at any rate. Not impeachment hearings, just simple, straightforward, aggressive investigations. Investigations can bring questions about signing statements and rendition to the fore, and might even increase the number of people within and without the legislature favoring impeachment. Maybe even a few agency investigations of those incompetent cronies might spare us from seeing them come back like a bad rash in a decade.

As I have said everytime I get the chance, there are 22 vulnerable GOP Senate seats up for grabs in 08. That's 22 good 'focus on accountability' points--those people need to be pressured.

I don't object to the concept of impeachment, I like the idea--I just don't want to try to shoot with an unloaded weapon. I am not one of those who believes in "symbolic" impeachment without a conviction. If we do it, I want it to stick. It will seriously and negatively impact all the work we've done, to this point, if we try it and the effort peters out.

[Sir Jeffrey]

80. I strongly disagree...

with your point that impeachment without conviction will undercut our efforts for next year and beyond.

Post-election analysis in 2000 showed that Gore was hurt nationwide by a weird phenomenon: Clinton's personal dalliances were negatively impacting Gore's electoral college tally. The GOP's impeachment efforts let them taint the Democrats as the party of immorality and decadence...and it won them votes. I agree with you that the only reason Bush is in the White House now is because the criminal fucks he works for gamed the system enough to get him in. However, the Clinton impeachment trial, which by the way NEVER had anything close to popular support (25%) motivated the GOP base, gave their next candidate a winning tagline ("I will restore honor and dignity...") and won them a significant number of independent votes. In other words, they won votes by impeaching a popular president in spite of overwhelming opposition by the public.

Depending on which poll you believe, between 35-45% of the public supports impeachment AND removal. That means we already have convinced a third of the electorate before the trial even starts. Do you think that number is going to drop once the investigation uncovers even more evidence? The sad truth is that the reason our leaders aren't pursuing this is because a slim majority of independents oppose impeachment right now. I would argue that that number is skewed nationwide because the number of self-identifying republicans has plummeted recently as they claim newfound independence, and their newfound independence is overrepresented in polls, but I don't own a polling company so I just rely on my gut about that.

Anyway, my point throughout this whole thing is that we need to take a hard stand NOW in order to do the following:

1. Galvanize support in the base
2. Publicly air the President's dirty laundry on two major issues (rendition and wiretaps)
3. Pressure the GOP to take a side and fight it out.

I fear that the Dems will lose support and enthusiasm among the base if they just keep plowing away with investigations and not pursue any of it further. A perfect example of this is the US atty scandal. They are relying on the federal courts to solve this issue for them. First, there is no guarantee that a ruling will even be issued before his term ends. Second, the ultimate authority in that case is the same body you are afraid will get involved in impeachment (the Supremes). Third, the further down the hole they dig on the issue the louder the base will scream for impeachment. You can only uncover so much wrongdoing before you say that you have enough to move forward with impeachment.

And of course, by pressuring the GOP to take a side, you might be surprised at who defects to our side. I understand your points, and I would agree with you if impeachment was only polling at 20% and Bush had an approval rating near 50%. That isn't the case. Bush is Nixon and the public is screaming for accountability. I say impeach.

[MADem]

82. You assume investigation WILL uncover more evidence. What if it doesn't?

What if it reveals Scooter-like underlings, ready and willing to take the fall, and nothing more?

"Yes, Representative Conyers, I did it--I didn't tell the President,either. I did it all on my own! " or "I lied to him about that--he knew nothing!"

I support simple investigations because right now, Bush is WELL insulated. Nothing touches him. There's not an email, not a memo, not a Watergate-ish type tape, NUTHIN' that leads to him. And it's apparent that if there were problematic emails or other records, they're somewhere on a missing RNC server--find THAT, and maybe we can move forward.

Scooter was no fool--he knew he wouldn't spend a day in jail. He was forced to act in a Play Trial when he'd rather have done something else, but he'll be well rewarded. And he'll get a pardon sometime after 11/08. Merry Christmas, Scooter! If anything, the way it turned out for him no doubt heartens others in the administration's criminal enterprise--he's the example of the Stand-Up Guy who has been rewarded.

I stand by my view that if we impeach, and fail to convict, we'll hear "selective prosecution," "witch hunt" and "partisan, ineffective, time-wasting Democrats" who pursue a "political agenda while there's a WAAAAR on!" And that's just the polite stuff. They're good at framing. And if we go on the assault after Bush and fail to bring him down, he emerges stronger from that contest--it energizes HIS base. Clinton's approval shot to the seventies after he came through the crucible. We don't need an energized GOP base--we need them defeated and demoralized come 11/08.

[Sir Jeffrey]

83. "Clinton's approval shot to the seventies"...

and yet his party lost the next Presidential election because the GOP successfully framed the Dems. Even including Florida in this analysis, the vote was far too close given the economy and the petty wedge issues.

Again, all I can say is that you are making a false comparison between Clinton and Bush. Clinton was already popular and the public was opposed to impeachment. Bush is the most hated president in modern history, and quite possibly the worst president ever. I'd love to see polling on how many Americans are actually familiar with extraordinary rendition and the FISA violations. These are the most egregious and obviously impeachable offenses, IMO.

Yes, the GOP is great at framing. It is really easy to frame the debate when one side doesn't throw everything at the other side. The GOP plays for keeps. The Dems keep clinging to this insane notion of bipartisanship. The only time the GOP screams about bipartisanship is when they're the minority. I want to see the GOP responding to attack ads that point out Sen. McConnell, for example, supports illegally tapping your phone and reading your emails in violation of federal law. Or one that says Sen. Domenici supports kidnapping people and sending them to Eastern Europe to be tortured for five years. Or, quite frankly, one about Sen. Vitter's hypocrisy.

One final point: the way things are going, if our nominee is the current frontrunner, the GOP will have all the energy it will ever need to GOTV.

[MADem]

85. Well, I don't want to get bogged down here, but his party didn't LOSE that election

Those smart, sharp little old Jewish ladies did NOT vote for Pat Buchanan. Come on. Even Buchanan acknowledged that that was total absurdity. And funny how the ballot designer went over to the Dark Side the minute her dirty work was done, and the Secretary of State, Miss Moxie and Spunk, got a seat in the House of Representatives for her trouble putting the fix in. That election was stolen, the recount was fixed, and ultimately, Florida was stolen from them by the Supreme Court.

But I really don't even want to compare the two. One was a President who had an excess of libido, the other is a fucking asshole who stole his way into the position.

And while I agree that rendition and FISA are egregious, there's those signing statements I've been harping about. We can't just wish those away. The scenario I postulate has to be considered. We'd be fools to amble down that impeachment road without taking a hard look to see what's down there a-ways. For a short term bite of the revenge apple, we could end up having the Supremes rule that it's Constitutional for the President to amend laws passed by Congress with a little note saying "I'm not gonna do that, for national security reasons!"

I don't think the Democrats need to go the "bipartisan" route. They need to go the "good citizenship" route, and simply point out excesses, aggressively investigate, and demonstrate more mature behavior than their whining, ethics-challenged, immoral counterparts on the other side of the aisle. If a Smoking Gun comes out as a result of that, well, good.

And as for the nominees on either side, it is too early to say who will get the nom. I happen to think that probably all save two of the current Democratic field could manage to beat any of the declared or likely Republicans without sweating too hard.

[Sir Jeffrey]

91. I totally understand your points...

but I think we're still going to run the risk of having the Robert's Court make a ruling on signing statements even if we don't press for impeachment.

But, quite honestly, what you are saying is different from what our leadership is saying re: impeachment. I hope that Pelosi and the rest will press for impeachment if they uncover the "smoking gun", as you put it. Their statements thus far do not give me any impression that they will though.

I just think we have two smoking guns already. That is why I have been very specific in my support for impeachment. I don't think it was a high crime to trot Cheney's dick out to lie to us about WMDs. Every President lies to the public.

And the post-mortem analysis of 2000, *even accounting for the stolen election in Florida*, shows that Bush gained a significant number of independents in the swing states precisely because of the Clenis.

I think we can both agree that Congress will uncover more criminal wrongdoing over the next year or two. I wonder how bad it will get.

[MADem]

92. I agree there WILL be more surprises, even though BushCo has worked hard to hide their sins

I think the BushCo weakness is that they have been overreaching in the Executive Privilege arena (and so long as Congress was GOP they could get away with that), and plainly, in the Judicial Branch as well. The Cheney insistence that he was not part of the Executive Branch, the Sarah Taylor non-testimony testimony, the Harriet The Spy Miers no-show--it all "suggests" that the trail of crumbs leads to the OO or the Office of the VP. The WH is an old edifice, there's GOTTA be a few rats in there! A rat or three would do it. Someone who KEPT the emails. And then they'd have a harder time going to the Supremes. They whine about "No underlying crime?" Well, it still ain't the crime, it's the coverup!!

So, I'm not unhopeful, but I do think also that we need to have substantial numbers of the GOP in Congress onboard. Otherwise, it becomes a partisan exercise, with the usual "witch hunt" crap being thrown. If we have a few GOP spokespeople saying "WE gotta problem, here" that argument goes away.

And that's why I think the Democratic leadership in Congress IS holding their fire--of course, they couldn't really say "Well, impeachment is off the table, really, because we don't have any sustainable evidence, and becasue we don't have the votes, and we don't want to pull a partisan, Newtish stunt that won't work and will leave the bastards stronger, AND we don't want our GOP colleages to feel bitter emnity like we did that will resonate for a decade or more--instead, we want this impeachment to be genuinely BIPARTISAN...like Watergate."

And that's appropriate, really--the architects of this BushCo administration were Rummy and CHENEY, who cut their teeth with Nixon, and the WH counsel is Fred Fielding, trained by, of all people, John Dean. Talk about your Circle of Life!

[Xithras]

FBI was typo. Remember, Nixon wasn't going to be impeached over the breakin

And as I posted elsewhere in-thread, the legality of the actions are still pending before the courts (the original decision was suspended).

It's interesting that you brought up Nixon. To date, there is no evidence that Nixon knew about the break-in when it happened. He was going to be impeached for his actions AFTERWARD..."Conspiracy to hinder a federal investigation", if I remember correctly. The actual break in was not an impeachable offense, but his actions afterward, when he fired people trying to investigate it, withheld evidence, and lied to congressional investigators, WERE federal crimes and were impeachable.

Someone pointed out once that if Nixon had simply admitted that some of his people were involved and fired them, impeachment proceedings wouldn't have been brought and he probably would have served out his presidency. What nailed him were the lies and coverup attempts afterward.

[Sir Jeffrey]

69. You may be right about Nixon..

with respect to the cover-up. Perhaps he would have lasted the rest of his term if he didn't keep trying to cover his ass. Or, maybe the House of Representatives would have kept investigating him until they learned that he ordered the break in.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/magruder.watergate/

At some point, you have to draw the line and say "This is enough evidence to proceed". The Watergate cover-up was, at the time, considered enough to warrant impeachment. Nowadays, apparently you can run a secret global network of torture prisons with the acquiescence of Congress.

[yurbud]

94. yep, and Hitler didn't kill anyone with his own hands, so if he had lived, we couldn't try him.

[yurbud]

93. he publicly confessed

[MADem]

12. Not only did Bush, himself, not do that, he covered his ass with a SIGNING STATEMENT

Try impeaching him for that. Really. He'll head to the Supreme Court for a ruling on that signing statement so fucking fast your head will spin.

What way do you think the Supremes will rule? Is Bush's Imperial Signing Statement LEGAL...or NOT legal?

I think we know how they'll rule. And that won't be good for America if it goes down that way.

So, if his signing statement is legal, and his writing a note saying "Ah am de Pretzledunce, and this here signin' statement sez that ah don' have to pay 'tenshun to gettin' warrants, even though this stupid law sez ah do" is the same as Imperial Decree, well...NO CRIME.

No crime, no impeachable offense.

That's why the legislatures are moving so ponderously. They don't want to give him ANY room to head this off by heading to his packed court.

[Wiley50]

2. Self-admitted violation of FISA laws FELONY, among others n/t

[Xithras]

10. I want the "others".

FISA law violations were committed by others. The Patriot Act provided legal cover for his orders when given. Unless we can prove that his orders were illegal at the time and that he should have reasonably known so, he has legal cover for that.

The goal here is simple. If George Bush were NOT the President...if he were Joe American, or even just Joe Average Politician, what charges could a federal prosecuter levy at him?

[MADem]

17. Again, signing statement plus Supreme Court ruling = No Crime nt

[MonkeyFunk]

4. The majority of Americans

do NOT want to impeach Bush.

Recent polls put the number between 36% and 45%

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Why does nobody ever respond to this?

at least 4 times in two days, I've seen people claim that the majority of Americans want impeachment. And yet none of the polls show that.

Why do people keep repeating that idea, when there's no evidence for it?

[MADem]

79. Well,like Al Gore's title

maybe it's one of those Inconvenient Truths?

Hey, those polls don't advance the argument!

[ben_meyers]

84. Not to mention that the poll everyone uses

Is heavily weighted toward democrats.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided

All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%

Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9%
Republicans (29%) 13% 86% 1%
Independents (33%) 50% 30% 20%

3/15/06 42% 49% 9%

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.



http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[wtmusic]

5. The process STARTS with impeachment

Impeachment ≠ removal from office. it's abundantly clear that illegal wiretapping was done with his knowledge, and the investigation can be handled during the process itself.

All that remains is the will to see it through.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. no

you don't start impeachment and then investigate.

You investigate first. THEN you impeach.

[wtmusic]

14. There is nothing substantive which is not already known

The president committed a felony by illegally wiretapping, and the fact is there will be no investigation without impeachment.

[MADem]

22. Signing statement. Supreme Court rules that it has full force of law.

Then you have no crime.

You think the Supremes will rule against George? Really? I have a bridge for sale.

[wtmusic]

25. The Supremes would rule against signing statements

Kennedy will not appoint Bush dictator.

[MrCoffee]

28. Kennedy has sold his soul...he can't be counted on anymore

read his utter BS in Parents Involved...he thinks he's going to be the next Harlan, except that he (Kennedy) sided with the devils.

[MADem]

39. You're sure about that, eh?

They've sure been ruling Bush's way lately, so I wouldn't be so confident if I were you. And your friend Kennedy? He's "tacking rightward" and becoming a "more reliable conservative:"

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-11-voa18.cfm

The high court decided 24 cases by a margin of just one vote and conservatives prevailed in 19 of them. Roberts and Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Among those rulings:
- The court upheld a ban on a form of late term abortion.
- Justices made it easier for prosecutors to remove jurors who might oppose the death penalty.
- They limited local school districts' ability to use race to assign students in desegregation efforts.

Law professor Jonathan Turley has followed the court, written about it and commented on its decisions for two decades. "These are young justices -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito -- and they have shown that they have got a stable five-justice majority."...Kennedy -- on the winning side in every close case -- has become the court's crucial swing vote. But Turley says he is tacking rightward. "In many ways, Justice Kennedy has sort of run home. He has become a more reliable conservative."

[MADem]

20. Aw, stop making sense!! You're being LOGICAL!!!

You're just another one of those pesky "Horse Before Cart" types!!!

[Xithras]

13. Very incorrect

Impeachment is trial by Congress. To have a trial, you must have a specific crime. Sadly, piss-poor leadership isn't a crime.

Does anyone know if there is a federal statute that makes it illegal to KNOW about a crime and NOT report it? Many states can charge you for failing to report a crime...does anything like that exist at the federal level?

[wtmusic]

15. He broke federal FISA laws

and is therefore guilty of a felony. What more do you need?

[MADem]

24. He prepared a signing statement saying he didn't have to pay attention to that 'stuff' for

national security reasons.

The Supreme Court will back him and say his statement overrode the law.

No crime. No guilt. No felony.

Back to Square One.

[wtmusic]

26. Calm down

What makes you so sure the Supremes want a dictator?

[MADem]

53. I'm quite calm. I can count though. 5-4 is 5-4.

The Supremes were the real "deciders." They're like the Guardian Council in Iran, only without black turbans.

Are you forgetting that they took the ball away from FL in Bush-Gore and GAVE us L'il Boots?

[Xithras]

30. Legally, that's not fully established yet.

One US District Court judge did declare them illegal in the ACLU v, NSA case, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the decision and explicitly authorized the government to continue the program while the lower court decision is being appealed. I do personally agree that he broke the law, but the question of whether or not he actually violated it is still pending before the courts. Legally, it's an unanswered question.

[wtmusic]

35. Repeatedly lying to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
President Bush
News conference
March 6, 2003

"The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
President Bush
Remarks to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"Not only will the United States impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses, but the nation will also punish those who engage in terror and aggression and will work to impose a universal moral clarity between good and evil."
President Bush
West Point Commencement Address
June 2002

There is all kinds of basis for impeachment. There is not the will (yet).

[Xithras]

40. Lying isn't illegal unless it's under oath.

I can tell you my hair is green, I weigh 3 pounds, and that Saddam Hussein was my bedbuddy who secretly hid all of his chemical weapons under my kids bunkbed, and it's not illegal. If I did it under oath, I would be committing a crime.

[wtmusic]

43. What part of a crime not being necessary for impeachment

don't you get? :shrug:

[Xithras]

52. If not a criminal statute, then a "high crime" is required.

Acts against the country to aid a foreign power or directly profit personally. That's the definition of a high crime.

I know that some people have claimed that Abuse of Power might be a high crime, but that itself is an undefined term and doesn't really move the argument anywhere.

Show that Bush's personal stock holdings increased as a result of his actions, and you have a high crime.

And, FWIW, I haven't heard any constitutional scholars chime in on this yet. The opinions of a few pundits on TV don't really matter much when the impeachment gets going.

Remember: 16 Republicans. If you cannot convince 16 Republican Senators that Bush committed crimes worthy of impeachment, then it's all a waste of time.

[MADem]

54. Well said. I do wish people would spend more time pressing the inhabitants of those 22 GOP Senate

seats that are up for grabs in 08. Then we might see some fireworks...if not on the impeachment front, at the very least on the "veto override" front.

[jmowreader]

87. I thought about it, and I think we HAVE the 22 GOP senators

I don't think I would want to have to go back to my constituents and ask them to re-elect me after I decided the pResident could run a network of secret torture chambers, tap every American's telephone without asking permission first, destroy our good name in the world, and lie us into a war that's killed (extrapolating) 4500 American troops including Johnny Jones, that nice boy down the street who took our school's football team to the state title and who helped bring blankets to homeless people.

[MADem]

89. For certain, sixteen of them plan to run for reelection. John Warner, though, I think has had it.

His COS left a while back and he hasn't bothered to replace her. She'd been with him for eons, too. So I think he's done. A few others are going, too, but they always have protoges they'd like to see take the seat.

I do agree with you, though--we've got a lot of them "on the Q.T." Just need to find a way to bring them out into the open! Soon!

I honestly think a good focus of investigation in the near and short term is the Judicial end of things--Alberto's excesses, Harriet Miers' cavalier attitude--you know darn well if we could JUST get her at the green covered table, she's probably wet herself--I think that might be where the weakest link is.

I've also been thinking a lot about Jack Abrahmoff...wouldn't it be quite the thing to see HIM testify before Congress?

Eh, back to bed. We have a "sicko" here, so I'm up and down all night...

[wtmusic]

57. Not that clear

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "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."

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

With 26% approval and 1/3 of the Senate up for a vote in 2008 I'm a lot less pessimistic that 16 Republicans for impeachment would be that hard to find.

[MrCoffee]

41. and which of those statements were made under oath?

politicians lie their asses off all day long.

[wtmusic]

47. OK, how about lying to Congress (Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001)

or conspiracy to defraud the United States (Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371)?

# Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
# Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
# Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress.
# Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
# Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship.
# Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
# Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

[MrCoffee]

51. Those are all from the SotU, right?

if lies from the SotU are grounds for articles of impeachment, no president would ever do it again.

[MADem]

55. They aren't "testimony under oath" either. He can lie to Congress all he wants, and the rest of us

too--so long as he doesn't do it under oath. It's why they never, any of them, want to be sworn in before they start flapping their gums.

[jtrockville]

7. Here's Elizabeth Holtzman's list (from 2006)

Deceptions in Taking the Country into War in Iraq.

Illegal Wiretapping and Surveillance of Americans.

Permitting Torture.

Reckless Indifference to Human Life: Katrina and Iraq.

Leaking Classified INformation.

Who knows how many more violations he's committed since her book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" was published?

[MADem]

59. All of those are easily refuted by BushCo, though

The Congress voted on that war--do we impeach them too?

That wiretapping? Signing statement. National Security. Supreme Court will rule with and FOR Bush if needed, just like they did 19 out of 24 times this past session.

Torture? Same deal--signing statement, national security, had to do it--get the stamp of approval from the Supremes.

Katrina--Fuggedaboutit. Go after Brownie, or the Army Corps. That one's just a desperate overreach. Should we impeach him if there isn't enough toilet paper in Federal Office Bldg. #2's third floor men's room, too? How far down, organizationally, do we go?

Leaking classified information--he can declassify anything with a wave of his hand. Total nonstarter.

He can swat all of these flies away with ease. There's nothing in that list you can reliably nail him on.

[jtrockville]

73. Of course criminals have excuses.

I urge you to read Holtzman's book for rebuttals.

[immoderate]

9. There doesn't have to be a crime.

High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the Congress wants it to mean.

Consider that the president is in a position to do things for which no specific laws are written. Abuse of power comes to mind. Having said that, there are myriad crimes that could be charged under conspiracy and racketing statutes. Remember, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony.

BTW, my subject line is a near direct quote from Liz Holtzman, who was on the Watergate impeachment committee.

--IMM

[H2O Man]

19. You are correct.

It is unlikely that anyone from this administration would be impeached for anything less than a crime, however.

[Xithras]

21. Generally there are definitions for the terms.

High crimes are crimes against the government itself. If Bush declared himself dictator, for example, that would be a high crime. Generally, high crimes are crimes which are committed with the intent to undermine the government of the USA. Short of declaring himself dictator, it's also a crime that's nearly impossible to prove.

Misdemeanors have always been considered to be any other crime as defined by the American legal system.

Abuse of power might qualify as a high crime IF you can prove that his abuse was intended to hobble or harm the nation as a whole.

[Poiuyt]

29. Yes - Abuse of power is considered a "high crime"

I heard Holtzman saying that also. She said that they were schooled in the Constitutional aspects of impeachment during the Nixon trial.

That said, www.afterdowningstreet.org has a huge resource center listing all the impeachable crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed.

[MADem]

31. You can impeach a ham sandwich. But if you don't convict, it goes down in history as a political

STUNT. Partisan witch-hunting. Party grandstanding.

And unhelpful.

Anything they charge him with, he can easily circumvent by running to the Supreme Court for a determination as to whether his actions were Constitutional or not. If they're constitutional, well, there's no crime.

And who presides over any trial? Why, his good pal the Chief Justice!!! I'm guessing Chief Justice Roberts will make judicious use of the phrases "Objection overruled!" and "Objection sustained!!!" depending upon which faction he's addressing--if it ever got to that point.

[MrCoffee]

32. ahem

i have nothing constructive to add, but the mental image of the confirmation proceedings for a ham sandwich has pretty much rendered me helpless.

"You can impeach a ham sandwich" is going in the rotation of phrases.

[MADem]

62. Well, what's that theme we hear so often?

Impeach, indict, imprison?

I rather suspect this poor fellah wouldn't last too long behind bars, though--he'd be eaten alive!!





:rofl:

[Xithras]

36. Indeed, that's what *I'm* looking at right now.

To impeach, 67 Senators need to vote him off the island. Even if we managed to get EVERY Democrat to vote for impeachment (questionable), AND got Lieberman and Sanders to vote with us, We would still need 16 Republican Senators to defect to our side in order to secure an impeachment. Without solid evidence of actual CRIMINAL actions, crimes he can actually be tried and imprisoned for, I don't see how we'll get them.

And if we fail, it will hurt the party tremendously.

[MrCoffee]

38. to *convict*, 67 Senators need to vote.

we really need to be very careful about our terminology. other than that, you are spot on.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. It's *Not* Well Defined - And He's Commited Glaring Crimes Anyway

The reasons for impeachment were left intentionally vague by The Founders. As Gerald Ford said:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."

In any case, warrantless wiretapping is a full frontal violation of the Fourth Amendment - a very serious violation of law.

[MADem]

33. Warrantless wiretapping accompanied by a Presidential Signing Statement?

If they try to impeach him on that score, he'll run quick like a bunny to the Supremes, and ask them if his signing statement overrides the legislation (throw in those national security justifications, now), and if his actions were constitutional.

Really, now--how do you think the Supremes will rule?

He comes away with a ruling that his actions were constitutional. No crime. No impeachment.

And who runs the trial in the Senate? Why, the Chief Justice does. You can be damned sure he won't fire up any trial until the Supremes get to give Georgie his pass first...making the proceedings moot.

[MrCoffee]

34. whoa, how'd the 4th Amendment get implicated?

None of the plaintiffs in ACLU v. NSA were able to state that their phones had been tapped, just that they fit the profile of those who might be tapped. Which is why the 6th circuit tossed the case on standing.

The 4th doesn't apply to aliens outside the US.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. US Citizen's Phones Were Tapped

My understanding is that they could not show that their own phones were tapped - however, the telephones of US citizens were certainly tapped. A crime was committed - we just don't know who it was committed upon.

[rodeodance]

18. It does not have to be a crime in the sense of legal

[BlooInBloo]

37. Well, if you ignore all of the reasons for impeachment, then there's no reason to impeach.

[MADem]

42. There is only ONE reason for impeachment--to remove someone from office.

Not to punish, not to excoriate, not to shame. Just removal.

[BlooInBloo]

44. Drat! The terminological quibble-master has discovered me!

[MADem]

63. Well, I realize you're being clever, but that is the purpose.

Any other reasons invite blowback.

[G_Leo_Criley]

45. there is no removal

from office until conviction by the Senate.

glc

[conscious evolution]

49. International law IS US law.

You do remember that part of the Constitution that says that treaty's are legal and binding,don't you?
Here is a refresher for you:

Article 1 Section 8 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

Article 3 Section 2 Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Here is the most important part of the Constitution in regards to International law

Article 6 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The United States is signatories of the Geneva Convention and also the United Nations.Both bodies have written codes of law conserning war crimes.As signatories these international laws ARE ALSO US LAW.
There is also a set of laws called the Nuremberg Principles.They were written after WW@ to give a legal basis for trying the leaders of Nazi Germany a legal basis.Written by US prosecutors,they were shortly afterwards recognized as International law by the United Nations and are still in effect today.

[wtmusic]

50. And another good reason

so many reasons, so many excuses not to.

[conscious evolution]

56. There are no good reasons nor good excuses

not to start impeachment proceedings.
Enabling war crimes is also a war crime.

[Xithras]

58. Yes and no.

Most treaties apply to nations, not individuals. International law generally regulates how nations deal with each other, not individuals. The Nuremberg Principles are one of only a handful of exceptions to this, and they define the ability of international courts to try criminals. As I see it, it would only count as a treaty (International Law) violation if Bush were indicted at the Hague, tried, and we refused to turn him over. That is potentially a recourse to get him impeached, but no trial has taken place. No formal accusation and charges have been levied against him by any nation at the Hague, and no trial has been attempted.

International law violations get tried by international courts. Last I checked, nations don't generally imprison their own citizens for violating international laws (and the US has specifically refused to sign a treaty that would require us to extradite US citizens accused of doing so).

[wtmusic]

60. Did you read Article 6?

Article 6 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[MADem]

64. An interesting aspect of that Article.

Notice how it specifically talks about judges "in every state"--but leaves out those "activist" conservative judges who rule on Constitutional issues.

Hmmm.

[conscious evolution]

66. We do have the authority to try here

Article 3 Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Bush's refusal to sign that treaty does not absolve him according to the Nuremberg Principles.

Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

The US may refuse to extradite but a bounty hunter can seize and extradite him.Remember Simon Weisenthal?

[Toots]

61. Obstructing Justice

The exact same thing Article V in the Clinton Impeachment addressed. eg. Refused to submit requested material from Congress.

[MADem]

65. Hmmmm. And Clinton wasn't convicted on that Article, either.

Hardly makes the case, does it?

[conscious evolution]

71. That is because the Senate knew they were bullshit charges.

War crimes are not bullshit charges.

[MADem]

72. Not really. That's because not enough Senators wanted Clinton to be forced out of office.

And that's all that a conviction at an impeachment trial does.

[Toots]

90. Clinton was Impeached though

How are Democrats going to do anything? It take as many votes to overturn a Bush* veto as it does to remove from office. Just what do you think Democrats can get accomplished without Impeachment and removal?

[MADem]

95. Like I said, you can impeach a ham sandwich.

What Clinton did, for those presidents who follow him, is show that impeachment isn't a demand or an invitation to skulk away in shame anymore. Without a conviction, the impeachment goes down as a childish and petulant attempt by the opposition to deball their nemesis. When it doesn't work, the nemesis emerges stronger.

I think the Democrats, with help from Republicans (in those 22 vulnerable GOP seats, for starters--and others), can end this war without impeaching anyone. I think that same crowd can reshape that "Patriot" Act so there's more transparency and oversight built in. I think they also can rein in a runaway DOD, with budget cuts, efficiencies in operations, and a shitload of nonpartisan oversight. The entire IG system, IMO needs reorganizing--it's a crony job, and it shouldn't be.

There's no end to what they can do, with those 22 Vulnerable Republican Senators working with them. You don't need to impeach FIRST to get cooperation from the other side. They're already abandoning ship, a few at a time. The rest of them just need a little nudge from their constituents.

I mean, really--what does impeaching BUSH get you? Why, it gets you PRESIDENT CHENEY. Who do you suppose he'll pick as his VP? I don't think it will be Dennis Kucinich. All you're doing is kicking the ball downfield.

Frankly, you're better off starting off lower, like with Gonzalez, and working your way up. Get the people who are carrying out the crimes, not the planners, and get those foot soldiers to rat out their bosses in exchange for immunity...that's sort of how Patrick Fitzgerald does it. That's how we found out for certain that Gonzalez was a guy who, for starters, goes right up to, if not over, the "ethical" line....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Bush just committed a felony yesterday.

He ordered Miers to not obey the subpoena. That's a clear violation of the law.


18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, or concealing ... information.

[MADem]

78. Well, you have to prove the "corruptly" part.

His assertion is Executive Privlege, not corruption, concealing or anything like that. You'd have to make the case as to his real reason.

[lonestarnot]

81. Did you by chance hear the State of the Union address with the 16 words?

And people are convicted on circumstantial evidence every fucking day.

[Duer 157099]

86. Obstruction of Justice

Issuing the gag order on Sara Taylor, so she could not testify about the CRIME of voter caging, is obstruction of justice.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. Do not confuse "high crimes and misdemeanors" with "felonies and misdemanors"

The second article of impeachment recommended against President Nixon in 1974 covered "abuses of power." None of these were statutory crimes, but all of them were things one did not want the President doing, such as sicking the IRS and the FBI on his "enemies".

US Attorneys may serve at the pleasure of the President, but when his pleasure is that they cage opposition voters, that an impeachable offense.