If we are serious about impeachment

[keithjx]

I was preparing to write an LTE re: this, and came across some interesting info I thought I’d share.

Clinton was not impeached for lying to the American public about Monica. He was impeached in the House under two articles: (1) perjury before the grand jury in the Paula Jones case; and (2) obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case. The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment in Article II, Section 4, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It wasn’t an easy threshold for the Repugs in Congress to equate perjury with “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

So what do we have on Bush in the DSM? Not enough, yet. But it may point to something big enough to meet the threshold. This issue was DEFINITELY on the minds of Bush and Cheney when they refused to take the oath or testify for the 9/11 commission. This is why they wanted to keep their comments to the commission as far from legally binding as possible.

The trick here becomes, “what else have they done that would constitute ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’?” That will require more digging, but the DSM, by itself, certainly won’t qualify. It opens the door, and Big Daddy Conyers is doing the right thing, trying to force this out into the open.

Thoughts?
KJ

[MessiahRp]

1. I guess my thought is...

Unless we change the face of both wings of Congress with some big gains in 2006, we're not even going to get this on the floor.

Rp

[keithjx]

3. True

Our only chance would require both (a) substantial changes in the make-up of both houses of Congress, and (b) something seriously substantial coming to light about the corruption in this administration (that we all know is there but have yet to be able to prove).
KJ

[MessiahRp]

8. I don't even know if something seriously substantial would work..

There are so many (especially in the House) that are lockstep with Bush that he could shoot someone in the face on TV and they would applaud him on the floor the next day in a speech.

There are moderates yes, but enough to impeach Chimp? I doubt it. :-/

Rp

[keithjx]

10. I get your drift.

And allude to it below. This is a situation where the public would have to embrace it long before Congress would. Because the inertia of the Repugs in the House and Senate won't be moved unless they see their seats are threatened (in the 06 election) and/or the public makes an unprecedented statement by voting many out.

We have a lot of work to do, don't we?
Thanks for being a sounding board on this, all of you.
KJ

[SteppingRazor]

4. Agreed.

Impeachment is a nonissue without a Democratic majority in the House. And actually removing and jailing the Little Bitch in Chief is impossible without a majority in the Senate. So there are two problems -- more digging into the crimes, and more work for the 2006 elections.

[liberal N proud]

2. Something needs to prompt a grand jury investigation

That would force the regime to confront the memo.
Eventually bu$h would have to testify in front of the grand jury, Or face charges of obstruction.
If he were to testify, it would then become clear that he fixed the evidence or open the avenue of lying to the grand jury.
Either way it is a loosing proposition for bu$h boy.

[keithjx]

7. That's right, but

in light of MessiahRP's comments, it's a "moving heaven and earth" type of situation right now. The atmosphere has to change substantially before Congress would move in that direction.
That's where WE have to make a difference.
KJ

[jojo54]

11. All chance was lost

when * wasn't forced to testify before the 9/11 committee. That's when we found out just who controls who.

[AverageJoe]

5. Well, they did take power after a rigged election

and keep power by rigging a second election.

But with repig majorities in the House and Senate, impeachment will not happen.

[ixion]

6. my thought is: what haven't they done?

the Plame affair.

the unPATRIOTic Act

the illegal invasion of Iraq

the Niger yellowcake debacle


How much garbage do they have to make?

[keithjx]

9. Right.

I agree. But the trick is - with what do we prove all this, and to whom will we prove it? This will be a case that the "court of public opinion" will have to decide long before Congress moves on it.
Again, that is OUR job.
KJ

[SteppingRazor]

12. Exactly...

Plame affair -- we haven't proven Bush had anything to do with it

PATRIOT Act -- what's impeachable about passing a law?

Illegal Iraq War -- Again, we need to pin Bush directly to this. So far, it hasn't been done.

[ixion]

16. impeachable because:

It's an entirely unconstitutional, unethical law the defies the very spirt of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And if you can't impeach someone for that, but you can for sexual indiscretions, then there is truly no justice left in our republic.

[donkeyotay]

13. Yep, I've got some thoughts

That's interesting:

This issue was DEFINITELY on the minds of Bush and Cheney when they refused to take the oath or testify for the 9/11 commission. This is why they wanted to keep their comments to the commission as far from legally binding as possible.

And so is the bit on Clinton's impeachment being for perjury. I'm no lawyer, but John Dean is, and in his book "Worse than Watergate" he lays out in 2 pages the case for impeachment:

In order to go to war, the warmongering pretzel had to show congress that a) there was an imminent threat that could not be resolved by other means (hence the WMDs and urgent need to stop their use), and b) that there was a connection to 911. The pretzeldent was never given unlimited war powers.

So, if perjury is impeachable, I'm guessing that lying to congress is, too.

As to your other observation about the odd testimony of Bush and Cheney to the 911 Commission, consider the implications of the Downing Street Minutes. If Blair conspired with Bush for the Iraq war, then Blair's credibility is questionable. Recall that when we went into Afghanistan to get Osama "dead or alive" BECAUSE he attacked us on 911, we were never shown the evidence that this was so. (National security and all) Bush showed the evidence to Blair, and Blair told the American people it was good. I remember finding this a very bizarre standard for the truth, but follow the implications on back to 911. If Blair's credibility is questionable because he conspired with Bush for the Iraq war, and Blair was the key to showing just cause for invading Afghanistan, then Blair's role in that war should also be questioned. It follows, then, that we don't know who was responsible for 911. All we know for sure is that there has been some championship disassembling going on in Washington (and Crawford).

[EC]

14. I'm watching the coins in Ohio

It is very public, involves theft and I think can be traced to *...People seem to understand stealing, and the Repuges in the Senate and House will try to distance themselves from it, i.e. from anyone that benefited from $$$ from Noe....Watergate, started little and just kept building...so with all that is starting to add up, I think we have a chance of building a case...


The Minutes will get people mad too, especially those with family in Iraq....

[adigal]

15. This is why he wouldn't talk to the 9/11 commission under oath

in my view. He could be prosecuted and impeached for any lies he and DArth told.

[ixion]

17. here's 25 good reasons...

Among other things, the U.S. Declaration of Independence is a lengthy bill of particulars against the "abuses and usurpations" of King George III. If the revolutionary founders had had their own government, Jefferson would have used his writing skills to frame an impeachment bill. Among the "abuses" T.J. cited was the King's refusal to "Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." If the colonists were riled enough over taxes on stamps and tea to shake the world with revolution, what will their inheritors do with the "usurpations" of our present Chief Executive? As Jefferson wrote, "Let facts be submitted to a candid world":


http://www.counterpunch.com/corseri06062005.html