Congress 'guilty of not impeaching Bush'

[kpete]

Congress 'guilty of not impeaching Bush'
Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:51:08


Political analysts say that the NIE report on Iran should prompt Congress to start impeachment process against the Bush administration.

"With the recent NIE report on Iran, it is ever clearer that the administration's deceptions have only grown in scope. If after this Congress still does not take up the call for impeachment, it is itself open to charges of collusion in high crimes against the Republic," said Niranjan Ramakrishnan, a political analyst.

Ramakrishnan criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for pledging 'to keep impeachment off the table' in an October interview, describing the pledge as 'ridiculous' and 'criminal'.

"To leave unchallenged the deliberate misleading of the country to war, (and the effort to do the same a second time), makes her party a knowing accessory to the same misdeeds," he said.


more at:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=33937§ionid=3510203

[NightWatcher]

1. excited to give the first of many recs for this one

he got caught trying to start another war based on lies. throw the bastard out

[Wizard777]

2. Pelosi's comment is a confession to obstruction of justice. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

21. You mean the "off the table" comments? or has she said something more recently?

Do you know if Nancy has repeated her pathetic mantra of enabling complicity in high crimes since the NIE news has hit
the headlines?

[insanad]

43. Can someone get Pelosi and Reed some Viagra ?

Our Congress has been so impotent and I'm very very unsatisfied. What will it take to get them to stop posing and bragging and just DO IT!!! With over 70% of the American people disillusioned or dowright violently angry with Bush and his corrupt administration, the exodus from his cabinet and absolute dysfunction of the entire staff, the lies, the lies, the downright dirty bald faced lies, WHY CAN'T THEY DO SOMETHING???

THe world is glaring at us like the Mom at Walmart with the obnoxious disobedient loud spoiled child who refuses to discipline him or demand better behavior as he has his temper tantrums,destroying everything around him and causing an embarassing scene. Because we allow our own despot dictator to do to others what we condemned in Saddam Hussein and other depraved corrupt power mongers, we in essence show that in spite of our "Enlightened Privilege", WE THE PEOPLE, are as easily led as any in the less endowed countries. For the first time in my 45 years, I'm ashamed of our nation for failing to eject George Bush and his corrupt administration. What will it take for our congress to act? Could someone get them a double dose of viagra so they can at least "Get it up" long enough to get the ball rolling on the impeachment? The world needs us to TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN BAD SEED.

WE THE PEOPLE have expelled corrupt dictators in the past. WE THE PEOPLE have fought against tyranny and oppression and won. WE THE PEOPLE have found good and just leaders and supported them and WE THE PEOPLE can do it again. We are innovators, creators, leaders, inventors, producers, and dreamers. We sent men to the moon, ended wars, created vaccinations for some of the worlds worst diseases, fed nations, and connected all of us here on this site with the internet. WE THE PEOPLE can change the course of this nation and make a difference in the world.

I have no intention of presenting a PollyAnna view that all will be well if we just elect a good leader. In fact, whomever that leader will be will be handed a bag of broken glass and the demands to "Fix" it will nearly paralyze any leader, even a good one. We the people are over 300 million strong. Surely there must be a fair proportion of those people who are willing to rise up, to fight and work and sacrifice and change to make the difference in the world. It won't just be a leader but a nation of leaders.

An apocalyptic view and bitter resentment won't be the glue that will hold us together. I don't doubt for a moment that our world is more corrupt, more toxic, more troubled, more cruel, more in the throes of anarchy than ever before in the history of our modern world. I also don't doubt that one person can influence another person, and another, till a whole community is inspired, and then a city, and a state and a nation.

Today I signed yet another protest against Bush and Cheney. Today I lent my name and reputation to some serious causes. Today I tried to share information and influence with people I love to inspire them to do something too. Today I reduced, reused, recycled. Today I didn't spend money I didn't have or go where I didn't need to go or consume what I didn't need to consume. I'll do it again tomorrow and the next and the next. I alone can't change the world but all of us can.

This petition can be sent to everyone who cares. Give it your best and do something TODAY!!!

http://impeachcentral.com/

[alberg]

32. Send the DLC a message they can't ignore.

Everytime we receive a request for a contribution, we write across it in big red letters: "NO MONEY UNTIL IMPEACHMENT" and mail it back. If enough of us start doing this they will change their "strategy" and start doing their Constitutional duty. We can always make the money up later, when they start doing the right thing.

[cali]

34. you seem to be confusing the DNC with the DLC

something supposedly knowledgable DUers do with depressing frequency.

[notanotherday]

49. The DLC democrats would screw up impeachment anyway.

The DLCers in the Democratic party would sabotage any attempt to impeach or investigate because they are working for the same people Bushco does.

[rosesaylavee]

3. A BIG KICK AND REC for this one.

As always kpete, thank you for the post.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Not impeaching is not a crime

so I'm not sure "guilty" is the right word.

[Vincardog]

6. Aiding and abetting a criminal act is a crime.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Yeah

good luck with that.

[nebenaube]

9. actually that's exactly how it will go down with the ICC.... n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

10. You think

our Congressional leadership will be charged by the ICC?

Why not charge every citizen who voted for them?

[Wizard777]

8. The good old 2x4!

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.

This doesn't say can be or might be. It says "shall be" and that is synonymous with MUST BE. I can give Congress a pass on Conspiracy. Because they were lied to. But they are quickly passing the point of no return as acessories after the fact.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. WRONG!

I can't believe how often I have to explain a simple English sentence.

It says they SHALL be removed upon conviction. It doesn't say they SHALL be impeached.

IF they are impeached, which is entirely a prerogative of the House, AND they are convicted in the Senate, THEN they shall be removed.

There is absolutely no obligation to impeach.

[Maraya1969]

14. It is not as simple as you are trying to make it either. Why don't you go for

the positive and just not throw your negatives into these conversations? They are not helping anyone and they might very well be hurting our position.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. It is simple

not a single constitutional scholar, much less anybody who can parse a simple sentence, thinks the "shall" in that sentence refers to impeachment.

The "shall" refers to removal.

You think I should let something I consider idiotic go without comment because it's "negative"?

You know what's negative? Constantly sttacking Democrats because this President and his party suck. This is Bush's war. Democrats want to end it, but don't have the votes to override any of his vetoes.

It's idiotic and genuinely counterproductive to attack Democrats non-stop over this. This is a Republican war, and it's being continued by Republicans.

I'm sick of morons here whose first response to anything is to attack Democrats. It pisses me off.

[99th_Monkey]

23. Yes, it's the Republican's war being actively enabled by Dems faigned impotence. n/t

[JMDEM]

52. Not surprising to me who is in your avatar. NT

[rateyes]

40. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

The Congress' OBLIGATION is to uphold their OATH OF OFFICE. Their oath clearly states that they will "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and they "pledge allegiance" to the document.

You continue to fail to answer the question: "How can one uphold the oath of office to protect the constitution if they do not impeach a president and vice-president who continually shit all over the Constitution?"

Since you won't answer it, I will: THEY CAN'T.

Protecting the Constitution REQUIRES the impeachment of a POTUS and/or VP who continually commit crimes against the Constitution.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Because

as I've explained, since the constitution makes impeachment entirely optional, an oath to the constitution can't be interpreted to require impeachment. The oath itself doesn't even have any legal weight, as far as I know.

As somebody else pointed out, was it mandatory for Congress to impeach Lincoln when he suspended Habeus Corpus? Were they obligated to impeach FDR when he interred Japanese-Americans? Were they obligated to impeach Truman during the steel strike?

No, they weren't.

[rateyes]

71. Don't tell me the oath has no legal force...

The Constitution requires an oath to support it on the part of Congresspersons.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus at a time of declared war...which under the Constitution he had the power to do. As for FDR...yes, they were.

And, if Truman's crimes rose to the level of an impeachable offense...yes, they were obligated to impeach him.

And, you still haven't answered my question: How can a Congressperson protect the Constitution and still allow the executive to commit high crimes with impunity?

[Thothmes]

74. Read your Constitution.

Only the Congress of the United States is allowed to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. The President of the United States is not granted that power by the Constitution. The Congress never issued a declaration of war against the Confederate States. They were declared in rebellion, but that is not the same as a declaration of war.

[PufPuf23]

75. Why don't you want Bush and Cheney removed from office?

I interpret shall as "is required"

Impeachment in House Step #1
Conviction in Senate Step #2

The Constitution and Bill of Rights not to mention our status in the world community at a minimum are dependent on impeachment.

Why do you hate our freedoms lost? Why do you not care for the state of our Nation?

I have lost track of number of the high crimes.

I do not want a Unitary Executive Democrat nor GOP and neither was that the intent of the Founding Fathers.

[99th_Monkey]

22. She's flatly refusing to perform her sworn duty to protect America from criminals in WH

that is a criminal act in my book, obstructing justice, if not actively conspiring to defraud the government and the American public.

[onenote]

30. Was Congress obligated to impeach Truman? FDR?

MonkeyFUnk, of course, is absolutely correct. Members of Congress are under no legally binding "constitutional" obligation to impeach. TO the contrary, impeachment is entirely left to Congress "sole" discretion. No other branch of government, not the judiciary, the executive, the Senate can direct the House to impeach or even to consider impeachment. And to the extent that the oath of office creates any kind of legal obligation (and its dubious that it does) it certainly can't be read as requiring Congress to do something that the Constitutional makes optional.

Consider Truman: To avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, Truman issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Supreme Court subsequently held this was unconstitutional. Was Congress obligated by its oath office to impeach Truman? Should it have done so before the Supreme Court ruled (the lower courts divided on the constitutionality of Truman's actions).

You could probably find instances in every presidency of acts that were unconstitutional or alleged to be unconstitutional. FDR's decision to issue an executive order directing that Japanese Americans go to relocation camps during WWII seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Should FDR have been impeached? Does it matter that the SCOTUS found that the relocation order was constitutional?

Its easy to view impeachment as a black and white matter. But its all shades of gray in reality. And the framers intended it to be so.

Personally, I think impeachment is warranted for chimpy. But I also recognize that its a discretionary act and that the only way the citizenry can compel Congress to act is to elect members who share their views. In this instance, it should come as no surprise that Congress isn't inclined to move forward since the electorate decidedly did not make impeachment an issue in the 2006 elections.

[bobthedrummer]

5. k&r+ some useful Congressional phone numbers

Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of The House Judiciary Committee where HR 799 The Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney is pending DC office directlines

[phone], [phone]

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a member of The House Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties DC office directline

[phone]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of The House DC office directline

[phone]

Rep. Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader DC office directline

[phone]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, introduced HR 333 now HR 799 The Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney DC office directline

[phone]

Toll free Congressional switchboard numbers

1-800-862-5530

1-800-828-0498

1-800-614-2803

1-866-338-1015

1-866-340-9281

1-866-220-0044

Keep calling-NGU.

[Joe Fields]

11. Seems like we are way ahead of the curve on this. It's about time

some in the media are catching up to us. I've been chanting this mantra for a long time, now.

[Maraya1969]

13. Oh this is near and dear to my heart. Kick and Recommend

[bobthedrummer]

15. .

[bonito]

16. 22 n/t

[magellan]

18. k&r

[deacon]

19. k + r

[BeHereNow]

20. HELL YES! Recommended!

The truth has been spoken!
They ARE complicit and should be held accountable
as such.
KUCINICH for President!!!
The ONLY congress member to also say and stand for the LAW.
BHN

[kentuck]

24. Indeed it does...

They are accessories to the crime....each and every one of them.

[Perry Logan]

25. Yea! If attacking our own leaders doesn't work...attack them some more. That'll work.

[HamdenRice]

55. Wow. That make absolutely no sense at all. Not one bit!

So it is an "attack" on our "leaders" to criticize them for not purusing impeachment?

You realize that this position is almost perectly devoid of logic or any connection to reality, don't you?

[Echo In Light]

26. "To leave unchallenged..." All By Design! Not "cowards," but COMPLICITOUS

[pleah]

27. They should all be held accountable!

[Thothmes]

28. Congressional accountability

is exercised every two years for members of the House of Representatives and every six year for members of the Senate.

[pberq]

29. Good find, kpete - K&R

[onenote]

31. Who the f*ck is Niranjan Ramakrishnan?

Exactly what makes this "political analyst" so compelling that his opinion deserves any more credence than that of the man (or woman) on the street? And its interesting that the article cited by the OP suggests that multiple political analysts are concluding that NIE report should prompt impeachment proceedings, but the article itself only cites the renowned (sarcsasm) Mr. Ramakrishnan. And it might help Mr. Ramakrishnan's credibiilty as a political analyst if he didn't offer up unconstitutional (and absurd) options, such as the suggestion that Pelosi be impeached.

The above are the opinions of "political analyst" onenote.

[cali]

37. hang it up, onenote.

don't even try getting between zealots and the object(s) of their passion. I'm pro-impeachment, but I fully realize that said action is entirely at the discretion of the Congress, and thus the argument that Pelosi and others are not upholding their oath of office, is utter nonsense. But I have recognized that it's impossible to talk to people so wrapped up in their viewpoint and so fueled by zealotry.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Not Utterly Nonsense, cali

While i agree in priciniple, there are, in my view, some subrogations of Constitutional requirements in which the Executive could engage, that impeachment would be the only course. While at the discretion of Congress, some "high crimes" or "misdemeanors" would be so egregious that there is no room for discretion and still be able to uphold their oath.

In the current situation, as much as i loathe Silverspoon and his gang of puppetmasters, i do agree that the discretionary space for Congress is extant. I'd love to see impeachment, but i don't think they have to.

But, i do think that should a prez go too far, the Congressional discretion gets thinner and thinner and eventually evaporates.

At some point, the concept isn't ridiculous, although i agree that it sort of is, right now.
The Professor

[onenote]

44. Does locking up American citizens in relocation centers cross that line?

Should FDR have been impeached? Does it matter that the SCOTUS found that relocating Japanese Americans was constitutional? Should Congress have made its own judgment?

At some point the moral and political imperative to impeach becomes overwhelming. But it always remains a discretionary act from a legal standpoint. There is no way to compel members of the House to vote to initiate an impeachment proceeding or to vote in favor of articles of impeachment nor is there any way to compel Senators to vote to convict, other than by electing members who say they will take these actions and, if they don't, voting them out again.

[yodermon]

46. They may not be in technical, material violation of their Oaths,

but I, and many others, find it morally abhorrent that they are *not* willing to hold impeachment hearings. I would support a vote to expel Pelosi from the House if she continues to dismiss impeachment for purely political and tactical reasons, overlooking the *overwhelming* moral imperative to remove these crooks from office.

[cali]

48. I understand that. I sympathize with that.

To a degree I agree that the unwillingness to hold impeachment hearings is morally indefensible. Btw, you can't have a vote to expel Pelosi from the House under these circumstances, and it will never, ever happen. Why waste energy hoping for an impossibility?

[yodermon]

50. Well you're right of course; we have a better chance of changing pelosi's mind

than getting her expelled. However, I will not criticize those calling for her expulsion because it is still part of the pressure strategy. Their end goal is not to get Pelosi removed, but to get bush/cheney impeached. Criticism of Pelosi will include a mixture of polite "nancy pretty please put impeachment back on the table. see how many of us there are?" along with forceful "nancy we demand you hold impeachment hearings right fucking now" along with threatening "nancy impeach the fuckers or get thrown out on your ass because your are in moral violation of your Oath of Office".

If you have a problem with the 3rd one, i would say just ignore those who say it, and simply engage in whichever you feel comfortable with. Why do *you* waste energy criticizing those who do? That smacks of the stereotypical hand-wringing, nail-biting, triangulating, right-wing-frame-affirming Democrat who says "oh no, now let's not go too far here, what will the neighbors say, how uncouth". What do you (we) gain by standing in the way of any particular strategy?

[cali]

51. nothing like a slime attack from, well, you know....

that's some bullshit you're spewing under the guise of being helpful.

I don't care for your "suggesting" that that I'm really some far right democrat. You can't get much sleazier than that kind of attack. And I don't take well to the "ritual shaming" crap. So shove it someplace dark and odiferous.

"That smacks of the stereotypical hand-wringing, nail-biting, triangulating, right-wing-frame-affirming Democrat".

Oh yeah, I'll post where I want to post so don't bother with suggesting that I not.

[yodermon]

56. suit yourself. I didn't intend it as an attack.

I'd prefer your opinion of the actual content of my post instead of one line out of it.

I do not think you are a far-right Democrat. I have no idea what you mean by "ritual shaming".

"Oh yeah, I'll post where I want to post so don't bother with suggesting that I not."
It's a message board. Of course you can post where you want. What are you even talking about?

Again, I'm just trying to divine what utility you see in attacking a particular strategy whose goals are exactly the same as yours, namely, getting this administration impeached. If you find threatening pelosi with expulsion distasteful, then don't engage in it. But going *out of your way* to attack & name-call those who *do* choose threaten pelosi with expulsion strikes me as a waste of time & counterproductive, because their ends are the same as yours.

When you *do* choose to attack and name-call us "zealots", it just sounds like you're trying to up your street-cred with the MSM narrative, that there is a segment of the pro-impeachment crowd that's so left-wing & wacky they deserve nothing but derision and, well, ritual shaming.

[cali]

57. whatever.

I have a visceral dislike of dishonesty. And claiming that your name calling and associating me with the "far right, triangulating, etc., is simply dishonest.

[Joe Fields]

58. Have you even read the oath of office? Do you even know what it says?

Does it not mean anything to you? Do you believe that our elected officials can ignore the oath they swore or affirmed to at their discretion? I guess you can lump me in with the "zealots" who demand and expect that our politicians take their jobs seriously, and not pick and choose what they will protect and defend. Because right now, Cali, the only thing they think they are defending are their precious jobs. They may get a big shock on that front, though.

[spanone]

33. that's how the thugs will frame it next year.....and they will be right

[AuntPatsy]

35. As they should, by not enforcing the rule of law they themselves become

as guilty by aiding and abeting a known criminal act.

[aquart]

36. Yeah, if we still had law and a constitution.

I miss them so much.

[Echo In Light]

42. A most valid, crucial point that is strangely overlooked...

[Peggy Day]

38. I called Pelosi's office

I congratulated her on the energy bill, but then asked them to ask her what would it take to impeach him?
If he killed someone in front of everyone, would it still be off the table?
Well, how about hundreds of thousands of people?

[rodeodance]

41. agree and will forward to all and the congresscritters!!

[yodermon]

45. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOOOOOOTES!

Don't you understand? it's perfectly ok to turn a blind eye to war crimes when the opposition party has enough votes to prevent a conviction! The American People understand this, and will forgive the Democrats for their equivocation. But you have to make sure the american people never find out the full details of the crimes in question. So *shhhh* every please shut the fuck up about impeachment already!

[rateyes]

47. And, they don't have the BACKBOOOOOOOOOONES!!

:hi:

[Dr Fate]

54. True. The DLC/traitor congressmen will vote to protect Bush, like usual.

When they say "we dont have the votes" they really do mean the "we" part.

[Dr Fate]

53. Not gonna happen. The DLC tratiors will fight this harder than they ever DREAMED of fighting Bush.

One thing you can count on- if it is something the base wants and if it involves holding Bush to REAL accountability on the war, the DLC and Blue Dog traitors will be passionately against it.

[yodermon]

59. I wonder which of the leading Dems will pledge to investigage

and indict any of these criminals after they ascend to office?
My guess is none, except Kucinich of course.
I'd love to be surprised.

[Dr Fate]

60. "we" wont have the votes. "We" meaning DLC & bluedog traitors, of course.

n/t

[whistle]

61. Has HR 333 pretty much dried up and blown away?

[focusfan]

62. i agree he should be impeached but

i heard they didn't have enough votes and he doesn't have long
in office anyways thats what heard:nuke: 

[Mme. Defarge]

63. WILL NO ONE

(in congress, using the available legal remedy) RID US OF THIS CRIMINAL AND MALIGNANT ADMINISTRATION?!

WHY MUST WE STAND FOR FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW BY THIS ADMINISTRATION? WHY MUST WE, AS A NATION, BE SUBJECTED TO EVER WORSENING HUMILIATION BY THIS ADMINISTRATION? HOW MUCH LONGER, MUST WE AS AMERICANS, BE ASHAMED OF OUR COUNTRY?

HELP US PLEASE!

[sss1977]

64. Like it or not everyone, the Democratic Congress is now just as guilty

It's disgusting to me the clear mandate we handed them that they've chosen to ignore on grounds they would look weak in matters of national defense and support of the troops. All they have to do, to clear themselves of capitulation is to support impeachment. No they don't have the votes for actual impeachment now, but they could certainly get them if they tried. They're so worried about failing in impeachment and rallying people behind the President instead, that they won't even begin the process. But that's why they don't do much of anything. The Republicans are wrong most of the time, but you can at least say they actually do things. They leap before they look. The Democrats have become all talk and no action, they look, and don't ever leap at all. We need more Progressives in office who actually feel strongly about their own convictions, and the notions of morality and justice!

[paulk]

66. fascinating that this renowned "political analyst",

Mr. Ramakrishnan, chooses to blame the Democrats for this. Are there any Republicans in the House willing to vote yes on impeachment charges? I don't know of more than a handful. It seems to me that it's the Republicans that are blocking impeachment, not the Democrats.

But, I'm not a political analyst, so what do I know?

[Uncle Joe]

67. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[AllyCat]

68. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm so sick of this refusal to get this guy.

I don't believe in the "we don't have the votes" excuse. Lame, lame, lame. It's called "Congress is just getting too much benefit from us being at war to bother doing anything".

[kath]

69. DERELICTION OF DUTY.

and obstruction of justice. All Senators and Congresspersons are in violation of their oath of office.

Impeach the whole fokkin' lot of them. Put in people who actually care about the Constitution.

[bobthedrummer]

70. Dennis Kucinich got impeachment right the first time-kick

[bobthedrummer]

72. .

[kath]

73. Impeach the sumbitches. NOW.