Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment

1. The Presidential oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush flouts the very Oath of Office.

Bush's Oath is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, Domestic or Foreign.

Bush attacks the Constitution.

Impeach him & Cheney.

Case closed.

Impeach Bush NOW!

Well, you've stated the law very nicely, but I think you forgot to give an example of a violation.

Funny thing about that statement Oralley is it wasn't perjury. Provide the evidece that Clinton had intercourse with Lewinsky. Oral sex was SPECIFICALLY REMOVED from the definition used. Even Lewinsky's lawyers agree that the definition didn't include it. Kind of hard to lie about something that the questioner even felt didn't include. If the person asking the question and the person answering both felt that oral sex wasn't part of the question then where is the lie?

You have a evidence he did fondle her breasts? Perjury requires more than testimony of one witness. Simply because you belive Lewinsky doesn't matter. No perjury charges can be brought on testimony of one witness without cooberating evidence of some kind.


Doesn't prove he had intercourse as defined under the definition. In fact No one has testified he did any sexual act other than the one that was REMOVED from the definition.

Doesn't meet standards for perjury.



And this is obstruction on the part of Clinton how? Currie testified that Lewinsky asked Currie to come get the gifts. No one ever testified that Clinton ordered Currie to do it. Cite the law that would cover it. Show how Clinton broke that law. Your arguments are without any legal merit at this point. No one testified that Clinton told them to lie or cover up anything. You are merely speculating at this point.

He tried to coach her? LOL. That is a stretch. No one testified he coached her. He asked her a question, that doesn't equate to coaching. Wishful thinking from someone that demands absolutes from others Oralley.



There is no evidence of obstruction other than Clinton's statements. YOu can't obstruct with testimony unless you lie and if you lie than it would be perjury. It is possible to obstruct without perjury but no hard evidence that Clinton obstructed anything.



He didn't have sex with Lewinsky as defined by the court. There is no hard evidence to support him fondling Lewinsky's breasts. You can BELIEVE it all you want. It isn't enough to show he did it. Your standards are no higher than those you are attacking for calling Bush a liar. People have said that Bush KNEW things before he said them. MANY people have said that.


Your standard seems to be one person's word against another proves perjury but many people's words doesn't prove anything when it comes to Bush. You don't have much standing to demand others live up to a standard higher than you will Oralley

ROFLMAO.. The govt has to be the victim in order for impeachment? That is too rich ORalley, after the way you went off on how Clinton committed perjury in the Jones case. How is the govt the victim in a civil lawsuit? And now the govt isn't the victim if Bush violates the law? Under US law treaties are law.





Since they are war criminals, they do not have the benefit of Geneva 3.

However, they are still enemy soldiers who were captured and can be legally held until the end of the war.[/quote] WTF? That makes no sense ORalley. If they aren't covered by Geneva than there is no legal document that covers holding them until the end of the war. Geneva is the document that allows for holding people until the end of hostilities.

Brandon, trying to reasons with cultists is a waste of time.

Parados
Parados, Brandon is one of the most boring posters on A2K. He is soooo predictable. He has his little list of responses from which to select. His most overused one is demanding proof of (take your choice) to everyone's posts.

BBB

Trying to reason...that is.

Re: Parados


That is the problem with this medium. In real life, someone like Brandon would either be ignored or laughed at. Here, someone will always respond to his mantra.

The Case for Impeachment

Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.

SourcesA country is not only what it does?-it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. ?-Kurt Tucholsky

On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press?-nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

"To take away the excuse," he said, "that we didn't know." So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, "Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?" when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that "somehow it escaped our notice" that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:


"I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news."

Which turned out to be the purpose of his House Resolution 635?-not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers's staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses?-government officials both extant and former, journalists, military officers, politicians, diplomats domestic and foreign?-the authors of the report find a conspiracy to commit fraud, the administration talking out of all sides of its lying mouth, secretly planning a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that nothing was further from the truth.[1] The result has proved tragic, but on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd. Entitled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War," the Conyers report examines the administration's chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration's criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.

* * *

That President George W. Bush comes to power with the intention of invading Iraq is a fact not open to dispute. Pleased with the image of himself as a military hero, and having spoken, more than once, about seeking revenge on Saddam Hussein for the tyrant's alleged attempt to "kill my Dad," he appoints to high office in his administration a cadre of warrior intellectuals, chief among them Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, known to be eager for the glories of imperial conquest.[2] At the first meeting of the new National Security Council on January 30, 2001, most of the people in the room discuss the possibility of preemptive blitzkrieg against Baghdad.[3] In March the Pentagon circulates a document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts"; the supporting maps indicate the properties of interest to various European governments and American corporations. Six months later, early in the afternoon of September 11, the smoke still rising from the Pentagon's western facade, Secretary Rumsfeld tells his staff to fetch intelligence briefings (the "best info fast...go massive; sweep it all up; things related and not") that will justify an attack on Iraq. By chance the next day in the White House basement, Richard A. Clarke, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, encounters President Bush, who tells him to "see if Saddam did this." Nine days later, at a private dinner upstairs in the White House, the President informs his guest, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, that "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq."

By November 13, 2001, the Taliban have been rousted out of Kabul in Afghanistan, but our intelligence agencies have yet to discover proofs of Saddam Hussein's acquaintance with Al Qaeda.[4] President Bush isn't convinced. On November 21, at the end of a National Security Council meeting, he says to Secretary Rumsfeld, "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?...I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret."

The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, "**** Saddam. We're taking him out." At a Senate Republican Policy lunch that same month on Capitol Hill, Vice President Dick Cheney informs the assembled company that it is no longer a question of if the United States will attack Iraq, it's only a question of when. The vice president doesn't bring up the question of why, the answer to which is a work in progress. By now the administration knows, or at least has reason to know, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, that Iraq doesn't possess weapons of mass destruction sufficiently ominous to warrant concern, that the regime destined to be changed poses no imminent threat, certainly not to the United States, probably not to any country defended by more than four batteries of light artillery. Such at least is the conclusion of the British intelligence agencies that can find no credible evidence to support the theory of Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda or international terrorism; "even the best survey of WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile and CW/BW weapons fronts..." A series of notes and memoranda passing back and forth between the British Cabinet Office in London and its correspondents in Washington during the spring and summer of 2002 address the problem of inventing a pretext for a war so fondly desired by the Bush Administration that Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6, finds the interested parties in Washington fixing "the intelligence and the facts...around the policy." The American enthusiasm for regime change, "undimmed" in the mind of Condoleezza Rice, presents complications.

Although Blair has told Bush, probably in the autumn of 2001, that Britain will join the American military putsch in Iraq, he needs "legal justification" for the maneuver?-something noble and inspiring to say to Parliament and the British public. No justification "currently exists." Neither Britain nor the United States is being attacked by Iraq, which eliminates the excuse of self-defense; nor is the Iraqi government currently sponsoring a program of genocide. Which leaves as the only option the "wrong-footing" of Saddam. If under the auspices of the United Nations he can be presented with an ultimatum requiring him to show that Iraq possesses weapons that don't exist, his refusal to comply can be taken as proof that he does, in fact, possess such weapons.[5]

Over the next few months, while the British government continues to look for ways to "wrong-foot" Saddam and suborn the U.N., various operatives loyal to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld bend to the task of fixing the facts, distributing alms to dubious Iraqi informants in return for map coordinates of Saddam's monstrous weapons, proofs of stored poisons, of mobile chemical laboratories, of unmanned vehicles capable of bringing missiles to Jerusalem.[6]

By early August the Bush Administration has sufficient confidence in its doomsday story to sell it to the American public. Instructed to come up with awesome text and shocking images, the White House Iraq Group hits upon the phrase "mushroom cloud" and prepares a White Paper describing the "grave and gathering danger" posed by Iraq's nuclear arsenal.[7] The objective is three-fold?-to magnify the fear of Saddam Hussein, to present President Bush as the Christian savior of the American people, a man of conscience who never in life would lead the country into an unjust war, and to provide a platform of star-spangled patriotism for Republican candidates in the November congressional elections.[8]

* * *

The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years?-misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as "enemy combatants," etc.?-but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal?-known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?

And this definition can be found where? Unless you have a supreme court ruling in hand , there is no definition that defines them as they are used in the Constitution.


And when Bush went around the FISA court and didn't get the warrants required by the law he undermined the court and the legislature. Gee, Both the court and the legislature are government entities.



False argument. The Courts have ruled that govt can't invade privacy without a warrant. The reverse is actually true. The law enforcement agency is the one that has to prove that there was probable cause.

But you can see perjury without any evidence? Rather narrow vision there Oralley.

You aren't familar with the Geneva convention it seems. There is no uniform requirement in Geneva. It only requires an insignia for regular troops. Citizens that take up arms when an opposing army invades does NOT require any insignia. When the US invaded Afghanistan ALL persons whether they had insignia or not would have been covered under that section.

I don't think there is any doubt that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps of US person in violation of the law and he failed to inform the Congressional COMMITTEES as also required by law.

The Federal wiretapping law states this....



I am curious as to what certification the telephone companies got from this administration and does that certification claim that they met all the statutory requirements. Such a statement would be false based on the FISA if the are monitoring US persons.

If Congress was doing its job it should be pretty easy to get all the paperwork.

The AG was supposed to submit a statement to the court concerning procedures for warrantless wiretaps. That statement was supposed to follow the law.

The AG was supposed to submit in writing to the communication companies that if he didn't have a warrant that the warrantless request followed the law.

Did the AG submit the paperwork as required by law and did that paperwork follow the law as required? Easy for Congress to subpeona the paperwork if they felt like doing their job.

I got it from a bit of research the Democrats did in 1974.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc.htm





Asked, certainly. But I'm still waiting for someone to provide the answer.

(I'm not holding my breath.)

I've seen no evidence of these two alleged events.

But the problem with you "seeing evidence" oralloy, is that if George Bush walked up and peed on your leg, you wouldn't see evidence of anything but that it was a little damp out that day.

You present your case, and then simply insult anyone who disagrees. No matter how you spin it, it's improper debate, and not very good behavior.

Re: Parados

You're even more repetitive than I am, and to boot, you mostly post links, rather than use any of your own words.

Imagine the nerve of me to ask people to provide evidence for their assertions. Something like that certainly has no place on the Politics board!

Re: Parados

And you respond even to polite, dignified disagreement with insults.

But somehow Brandon fails to address the cited laws at the top of the page after he spent so much time demanding that we cite them.