ANOTHER IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE Bush and Cheney will commit & was in Nixon's articles of impeachment

[yurbud]

Article 3 of Nixon's impeachment was about his failure to provide documents demanded by a congressional subpoena.

Is there any doubt that Bush and Cheney won't do the same, given their overuse of security classification and willful violation of the freedom of information act, and general fetish for secrecy?

Article 3

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

[dubykc]

1. No there is no doubt whatsoever that they have commited yet another...

impeachable offense.

[Independent_Liberal]

2. Goodie!

:D

[dmosh42]

3. Excellent post!

I had never read this charge as you posted, so find it intriguing. My only question is, do we know that Bush was subpoened by any congressional committees? But, even if not, it would be great to know about this during these coming investigations.

[yurbud]

7. my point was not that he did but probably WILL in response to committees with subpoena power

His rubber stamp Republican politburo barely ever asked for any information, let alone subpoenaed it.

[madokie]

4. That is why it isn't necessary to go in talking impeachment

They'll be plenty of impeachment opportunities in this next two years and I trust it will be done. This crew cannot under any circumstances allow the truth to come out and they know we know that too. they're screwn!!1111

[yurbud]

5. Congress doesn't have to mention impeachment--but WE should

we provide political cover for Dems by making a lot of noise for impeachment, so careful, measured hearings look reasonable by contrast to those who may oppose or be undecided about impeachment.

And of course the call for impeachment is reasonable.

[elocs]

17. The "We" in this case needs to be more than just partisan Democrats.

There needs to be a cry for impeachment from the American people across the board including independents and maybe, beyond reason and expectation, some Republicans.

[yurbud]

25. that's less likely to happen if WE aren't even doing it.

[conscious evolution]

28. A part of me believes there are repubs who

are just as tired of what bushco is doing to our country as we are.All of them can't be criminals.All of them can't delight in the shredding of the constitution.And I'd bet that a few actually do believe in rule of law.

I think,that when the time comes,that they will do what is right and stand with us to dethrone the would-be chimporer

[earth mom]

6. 5th Recommendation!

:kick:

[yurbud]

8. thanks! That takes us one step closer to giving Bush the Golden Shower

instead of the golden parachute.

[Cruzan]

9. How would the executive privilege argument go against this?

EP is certainly considered by Supreme Court precedent to be a valid part of presidential powers, so how and where is the line drawn?

[yurbud]

13. it didn't work for Nixon and the Supreme Court wouldn't even postpone Paula Jones case

until after Clinton presidency.

And the right wanted to examine his penis for peronis.

So the courts decide this stuff the way they do Bush v. Gore--in the most partisan way possible.

[tritsofme]

19. United States v Nixon cleared a lot things up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

[porphyrian]

10. Impeachment is a Constitutional imperative. - n/t

[elocs]

18. Is conviction by the Senate also a Constitutional imperative?

Because without it, Bush walks. How happy will everybody be with that? Or is impeachment enough?

[porphyrian]

21. Oh, never mind. Hear that guys? Give up now, don't bother trying...

Don't be an idiot, of course we need support in the Senate. We will have it in short time, I suspect.

Only republicans are stupid enough to spend billions on a grudge investigation ending in a convictionless Senate decision. The thing is, there are about five or so orders of magnitude more severe in the case of this administration, and it will be hard for any Senator to deny criminality once it emerges. Few of them will be willing to commit sepuku over it, especially given those that will turn easily. Now stop working against it and work for it.

[elocs]

22. As John Dean said:

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060912_john_dean_impeachment_president/

"Congressman John Conyers, who would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is a seasoned and savvy professional. He is very aware that when the Republicans controlled the House and Judiciary Committee, they ran the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton like a kangaroo court. They embarrassed themselves, and shamed the committee and House of Representatives. John Conyers will not make that mistake. He sat on the Nixon Impeachment Inquiry, which moved a step at a time, slowly gathering bipartisan support based on the facts. The great difficulty with an impeachment proceeding against President Bush (or any other officials of his administration) is that unlike either the Nixon or Clinton proceeding, there is no special prosecutor (or independent counsel) currently conducting an investigation that the House Judiciary Committee can rely on – as occurred with both Nixon and Clinton. The House Judiciary Committee would be forced to start from scratch, hiring investigators and legal staff, and then commencing an investigation against a presidency that has made stonewalling into an art form – and more than likely would fight the committee for every tidbit of information. In fact, unless there is a dramatic change in public attitude – the latest poll on the subject I have seen was an earlier September 2006 CNN Poll showing 69 percent of American opposed impeaching Bush – it will be the first responsibility of any impeachment undertaking to educate the public and Congress as to the need for impeachment. Without doing that, and finding bipartisan support for the undertaking, it would be the same sort of sham proceedings that the GOP undertook with Clinton."

[Ms. Clio]

24. the difference is that there are polls that show the American public supports impeaching Bush

if he lied and manipulated the intelligence to invade Iraq, and violated the Constitution. The majority right now is slim, to be sure, something like 51 or 53%, but rigorous investigation and exposure of all the administration crimes would increase those numbers.

[mom cat]

11. Thaanks yurbud for that post. The reasons for impeachment just keep

mounting up!

[Poiuyt]

12. "papers and THINGS?"

Somehow, that doesn't sound very lawyerly.

[yurbud]

14. tape

[yurbud]

15. lawyers would say "and materials manufactured or naturally occurring that impinge upon the

aforementioned issues, whether specifically specified in the subpoena or referred to in a non-specific mannner."

[Disturbed]

16. This may occur in a few months.

LEAHY TO BUSH ADMIN: Give Us Torture Docs Or We Will Subpoena Them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2744047

[bobbolink]

20. It's difficult to provide that which has been shredded.

:nuke:

[Toots]

23. Have you forgotten the main excuse???? "9-11 changed EVERYTHING"

Their disdain for the Law has been evident from the very git go...:shrug: Of course they will refuse to comply and the Democrats will fuss and grouse but do nothing...

[yurbud]

26. I hope you are wrong but it will be a minor miracle if you are.

[zulchzulu]

27. Cheney has already said he wouldn't cooperate

Dick clearly believes he is above the law. Chimp just follows Cheney's hand movements like a circus monkey.