Home

The Impeachment Hearing That Wasn't

Submitted by meg on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 4:17pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Meg White

Though the name of the hearing -- Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations -- didn't include the hot-button word, impeachment was on the minds of judiciary committee members and witnesses Friday.

Last month, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush. In an interview with BuzzFlash shortly after the introduction, Kucinich said it was imperative that Congress act now, rather than later:

"If we wait, we're licensing further abuses of power. There's been broad concern that this administration could attack Iran. Why should we give them the opening to do so by failing to challenge the lies that they told that took us into war with Iraq?" he asked. "We cannot wait for after the election. We don't know what could happen in the next six months with respect to a further erosion of our democratic process. And what the impeachment process would do would be to have a chilling effect on further abuses of the Constitution and on creating another war."

Kucinich recently introduced more articles of impeachment against Bush. After years of sticking to her impeachment is "off the table" line, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said earlier this month that she supported the idea of Kucinich's articles making it to a hearing.

It has been suggested that Pelosi took impeachment off the table to avoid being entangled in legal issues.

A Washington Post article from December of last year revealed that party leadership such as Pelosi had been briefed by the Bush Administration early on regarding torture policies, including waterboarding, as well as other controversial subjects. Journalists and lawmakers alike have suggested that the Democratic Party's reluctance to hold impeachment hearings relates to these closed meetings. They have suggested that Pelosi and others could be held legally responsible for their reticence on harsh interrogation techniques.

When such Bush Administration wrongdoings are brought up publicly, Republican lawmakers often say that since the Congressional leaders known as the Gang of Eight did not express concern at the closed hearings that they are complicit in the condoning of torture, an opinion mentioned again at today's hearings.

In at least one way, these were the impeachment hearings that weren't.

Conyers' staff made sure each witness had a written copy of the House rule that state "personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the president is not permitted. . . Any suggestion of mendacity is out of order."

Being called out of order could result in being barred from speaking for the duration of the hearing. In order to talk specifically about impeaching the president, Congress would have to vote to begin an inquiry.

"To the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing," Conyers said.

The lawmakers and witnesses repeatedly had to result to codes to refer to specific members of the Bush Administration. At one point, Rep. Cohen, wanting to ask a question about the vice president, referred to a "barnacle attached to the legislature."

Many were pleased that Conyers set up such parameters. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he was taking Conyers at his word:

"I hope we can expect that none of the witnesses will mention the word impeachment."

Cindy Sheehan, an activist who is running for Pelosi's seat, addressed the media and impeachment advocates gathered at the National Press Club yesterday:

"I read that Conyers has said that tomorrow they can't talk about lies or crimes or mention George Bush or Dick Cheney because it's not an impeachment hearing. Well, I have a solution for that: Make it an impeachment hearing. There's so many good people here that are really being betrayed by our Democratic leadership in Congress... I'm afraid that tomorrow's hearing is going to be another dog and pony show."

Pelosi's recent change of heart on whether or not impeachment is off the table put Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) in a political bind. He has said he supports impeachment hearings, but also that he couldn't make a move without the approval of party leadership. One way to avoid the problem was to hold a hearing that's not technically about impeachment.

Though Sheehan did not testify, she was addressed by the committee chair: "Sheehan, you're out," Conyers said, as security guards escorted her out of the hearing room after a disturbance during testimony.

One constant during the hearing was audience participation. The hearing was paused several times to remove protestors, and Conyers reminded those in attendance repeatedly not to show appreciation or disappointment with testimony or statements.

Even before the hearing began, the audience was audible. Screams and clapping accompanied Kucinich and his wife as they entered the hearing room.

Not everyone was as excited as the audience about the prospect of impeachment. Several Republicans used derogatory language to refer to the hearings.

Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) called the hearing an "anger management class," saying "nothing is going to come" of the exercise:

"There is no evidence to support impeachment."

Comparing the hearing to watching the "Friday night fights" as a child, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) called the gathering the "Friday morning show trials:"

"Maybe what we're here for is impeachment-lite... to allow the press the opportunity to print that the president has been accused of impeachable offenses."

Franks said the proceedings "would make Alice in Wonderland roll her eyes."

Sardonic language came from both sides of the aisle.

"Thank God we're not in Kansas any longer," Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said in reply to Franks' comment. Cohen had much higher expectations, saying, "These hearings will restore the faith of the American people."

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) also raised the ire of at least one Republican lawmaker when she stated that, "President Bush is the worst president we have ever suffered."

Witnesses invited by the minority party also used invective language when referring to impeachment.

George Mason University Law Professor Jeremy Rabkin was asked by House Republicans to testify.

"The tone of the deliberations is slightly demented," he said of the hearing. Rabkin characterized the idea that Bush lied in order to start a war in Iraq as an unbelievable, outrageous "conspiracy theory," born of bitterness and political divisiveness.

Both Rabkin and Northwestern University Legal History Professor Stephen Presser spoke to what exactly is an impeachable offense and advised against impeachment.

Presser appeared before Congress in 1998 during the effort to impeach President Bill Clinton. He said the allegations against President Bush were "different" from those mounted against Clinton. He said that since Bush didn't appear to have acted out of self interest, as Clinton did, his offense was not impeachable. Presser said that while "obstruction of justice" was the best legal course for Congress to take in constructing a case against the Bush Administration, he saw no direct evidence of the president obstructing justice.

Though both the professors were vehemently against the idea of impeaching the president, when Rep. Keith Ellison asked them if Kucinich's assertions proved accurate whether Congress should act, they both agreed that Congress should investigate.

Former Mayor of Salt Lake City and President of High Roads for Human Rights Rocky Anderson said that the two lawyers that used the personal interest argument were misusing law to prove a partisan point:

"That is atrocious scholarship." He brought up several instances of legal precedent that allow for actions by the Bush Administration to be classified as impeachable offenses.

"I stick by the list of impeachable offenses," Presser simply replied.

There were many different offenses committed by the Bush Administration that were mentioned as impeachable at the hearing. Elizabeth Holtzman, who most recently wrote a book on the subject of impeaching President Bush, was also a member of Congress who served on the Judiciary Committee. She was present, along with Conyers, during the impeachment of President Nixon.

Holtzman said there was a case, based on prima facie grounds, for impeachment. Among the grounds was the charge that the Bush Administration refused to obey the FISA law, the Geneva Conventions, the War Crimes Act, and the Anti-Torture Act. She noted that since the death penalty could factor in some of these charges, there is no statute of limitations. She also noted the improper use of signing statements, misuse of executive privilege, and deceptions about going to war with Iraq as further impeachable offenses.

Holtzman suggested beginning an impeachment inquiry. She said that prosecution is unrealistic, a truth commission would be stonewalled, and the only realistic remedy is impeachment, because executive privilege would not be a legal possibility in such a case.

"The options are limited, but there are options," Holtzman said.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) testified that he was most concerned about the quick shift from the war in Afghanistan to war with Iraq:

"They did not want to capture bin Laden," Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said in his opening testimony. "It would have been much more difficult to justify the attack of another country which had nothing to do with the attack of Sept. 11."

Much of the discussion revolved around what, in the absence an impeachment inquiry, should be done about accusations against the Bush Administration.

"My question is how we can enforce limitations of power... without using the impeachment inquiry process," Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) asked another witness, Bruce Fein, who was associate deputy attorney general from 1981-82 and is currently chairman of the American Freedom Agenda.

"Short of impeachment, there isn't anything you can do about a president," Fein replied.

Former U.S. Congressman from Georgia and Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr disagreed, saying that there are numerous Congressional actions that could at least "not make things worse." One of the examples he gave where Congress could have acted differently to change the actions of the administration was the recent passage of the FISA bill.

Despite the name of his book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, witness Vincent Bugliosi, author and former deputy district attorney, did not necessarily support the formation of impeachment hearings.

"Once he leaves office he could be criminally prosecuted for any crimes he had committed while in office," he said. "I've never suggested he could be prosecuted for murder while he was in office."

Many resolutions were suggested, including a bill to limit the president's authority to pardon of members of his administration.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was also a witness at the hearing. He introduced a bill last week to restore certain checks and balances against executive power and expects to introduce similar legislation next week. He said Bush should be pursued after leaving office:

"Those disputes will not be moot next year."

The election loomed large over the hearings. Many hinted at the theory that Democratic leadership does not want impeachment hearings to ensue because they are concerned the inquiry could make their party appear petty in the eyes of voters.

While the recognition of a new administration in 2009 put a short timetable on the possibility of impeachment, many were concerned by precedents that could be set by Congress' failure to act.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) said the future presidents "are informed by the actions and inaction of past administrations and Congresses... [Our actions] will impact the conduct of future presidents."

Previous administrations played a big part in the hearing as well. Impeachment efforts against both the Nixon and Clinton Administrations were referenced several times.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) rebuffed some who said that Clinton deserved impeachment while Bush should be exempt.

"If lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill... lying to the American people about the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign country... certainly that qualifies as an impeachable offense," he said, to an outburst of applause. Once again, Conyers was forced to ask the audience to keep quiet.

Others were worried that the current partisan nature of Congress is much closer to that of the Clinton Administration's era, and that voters might see the impeachment effort as disingenuous.

"The reason the Nixon impeachment worked was because it was bipartisan," said Holtzman.

At one point, both concerns over what should be done about the situation and what has been done in the past converged.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) proposed the formation of a modern-day Church Committee to start an inquiry, independent of the administration shift that will take place in January, into possible illegal actions in the Bush Administration. Schiff's proposal is based on a Senate committee that investigated the Nixon Administration.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | yahoo yahoo | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

The far left opposes the liberation of Aushwitz in WW II

Submitted by Ricky on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 6:23pm.
I'm SO SICK and tired of hearing the hateful verbal that pours from the mouths of "progressives", "democrats" and "Liberals" in regards to Bush. What a great scapegoat he must be for every angry american! When we bombed Dresden, Bremen and Berlin, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent German civilians in order to defeat a mad man who opposed freedom and attacked it in every form. Only through daylight bombing by the 8th and 9th Air Force and night bombing by the R.A.F. were we truely able to land in Italy and Normandy at still, a tremendous cost in money and human life. Only through those bombings did we weaken the Reichs economy and resources to the point of exhaustion. After the war we stayed and occupied West Germany, while we let the Russians police the East with violent oppression. Although Stalin killed millions more in his labor or (concentration camps) than Hitler ever did, we never talk about Russian war crimes becuase they were our Allies. They completely get off the hook for all their violations of the Geneva convention. Hitler. What a convenient scapegoat for all the anti-semitism that existed so fervently in Europe more than 25 years before the Nazis. Make no mistake. I want our troops home as badly as most. However, if you oppose our attack on Iraq and the bombings that took place to establish dominance so our troops could move in, you oppose the liberation of all concentration camps run by the Nazis. It's the same principal. Any strong liberal will bring in a million different variables at this point in a debate to divert attention away from my point. In order to stop a totalitarian that would torture and kill ALL of us just for this ONE web site, there is always an unfortunate cost in human life. It's tragic. War is tragic. Bush bowed to some ridiculous time table given by the UN for long enough before he had the guts to make an unpopular decision and go into Iraq. Does anyone honestly thing that Sadam is stupid enough to leave traces of WMD's production or even their prescence in his county? Of course he's not. He would have had MORE than enough time to get rid of what we were looking for. So I'm quite weary of that tirade. Bush and war crimes? Watch "The Trails of Nuremberg" if you want to know what war crimes really are. Read about the "Bataan Death March" if you want to know what war crimes really are. It's too bad Bush trusted the FBI and CIA with the powers of the patriot act because they, and similar organizations are the ones that took advantage of them. It's too bad a president can't trust the authorities with complete abandon. My point is, after September 11th, Bush vowed to keep us safe from another attack. You may hate him and I respect your view if you do. That fact remains he kept that promise. We are safe. At what cost? That's an entirely different conversation but I'm grateful that our country is secure from another 9/11 and we have the freedom to post our views. I hope our troops come home as soon as possible.
» login or register to post comments

If you crave safety at any price, move.

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 9:04pm.
The United States of America was founded by liberal patriots who stood up to right-wing oppressors. Millions have died over the years to defend our liberties.

Americans don't surrender our liberties just because one tinpot dictator (Cheney) wants to steal oil from another tinpot dictator (Sadaam).

There is no comparison between the struggle for Democracy which was World War Two, and the bandit raid which is the Iraq War.

If you crave safety at any price move to some European nanny state. This is the land of Liberty.

» login or register to post comments

Safety at any price

Submitted by Ricky on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:23am.
My point exactly. Safety at ANY price. Of course I don't want that. An entirely DIFFERENT DEBATE. As I mentioned in my post that a typical far left person introduces a new topic to change the point argued. 9/11 was perpetrated by a "tin pot" dictator, if even that. If you support oppression, move to Iran. How has Bush affected your rights PERSONALLY? I'd be interested to hear your response. How has it affected YOU and your personal life? Your damn right this is the land of liberty and I'm glad to be a part of it. I know you are too.
» login or register to post comments

Dumbest NeoCon "Analogy" I Ever Heard

Submitted by hterrya on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 7:40pm.

"...if you oppose our attack on Iraq and the bombings that took place to establish dominance so our troops could move in, you oppose the liberation of all concentration camps run by the Nazis. It's the same principal."
Submitted by Ricky on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 6:23pm.

As my beloved father would have said, "That Ricky fellow is as full of $h1t as a Christmas Turkey!"

You are in the WRONG blog. You need to participate in a Rush DittoHead forum where no one will call you on your foolishness.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attack and you KNOW it! And, Iraq still has political prisoners; they are just DIFFERENT political prisoners. Remember Abu Ghraib?

The current corrupt, criminal president slaughtered 4,000+ troops and untold numbers of Iraqis based on lies that he perpetuated. And, that affects me personally, because I believe that crimes committed against other human beings in my name, hurts me.

By the way, dumbnutz, a "principal" runs a school; a "principle" is something you and the other criminal NeoCons don't have a CLUE about!

» login or register to post comments

It may be very simple.

Submitted by bettysdad on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:44am.
Maybe impeachment and other actions against our criminal govt don't go forward because Democrats in Congress don't want anthrax mailed to them. They are physical as well as intellectual cowards.
» login or register to post comments

I finally get "it"..I think I understand

Submitted by Chabuka on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 7:00pm.
every investigation by Waxman (and others) that has uncovered every crooked aspect of this administration and its ("corporate loving" kick in the pants to the working class and our troops) has been sent on down to the Senate...and has been squashed by the Republican Senators, any impeachment hearings or hearings on any type of accountability would also be squashed in the Senate by the Republicans..remember "we" (the Democrats) only have a one seat majority (Lieberman who votes with the GOP )a "tie" at best...all the polls are favoring a huge Democratic majority, this time around (barring another election theft, of course...) and that is why Conyers has mentioned waiting until after the election..just remember all you right wing obstructionists...elections have consequences and paybacks are a "bitch"... the Democrats must stand tough and not give them any more retro-active legal immunity, and we must help them...or else we will be totally screwed..!
» login or register to post comments

Democratic Leadership vs. Progressive Democrats

Submitted by hterrya on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 2:32pm.
In this country people who consider themselves "conservatives" (Republicans and the Blue Dogs) represent the true majority in this country. Progressives (Progresive Democrats, Green Party members, and a small portion of the Independent Party) are outnumbered and have been outwitted by the "conservatives." Ralph Nader is an example. He condemns the ENTIRE Democratic Party, even though he KNOWS that the Party contains MANY who share his views and some (like Rep. Dennis Kucinich) who are MORE progressive in their politics than he is. Part of the problem is the fact that, by and large, progressives have bought into the WRONG definition of "democracy" (democracy = majority rule). Democracy ACTUALLY means the PEOPLE rule, majority AND minority (Remember Lincoln's "government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE?). WE progressives need to stop fighting among ourselves and DEMAND Lincoln's definition of GOVERNMENT. I believe a TRUE Democratic Party would form around that definition, and Nader and others might even join. Kucinich is correct. The current corrupt, criminal president and vice-president NEED to be impeached. However, if impeachment makes progressives fight among themselves, we will be in a smaller minority than we are already, and the hope for a government that doesn't represent the most conservative (and WORST) ideas about government will be thwarted once again.
» login or register to post comments

Working Americans vs. Parasites

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 6:34pm.
Conservatives actually agree with progressives on many issues. The real struggle is between working Americans and parasites. The corporate Dims and corporate Repugs exploit a small number of "hot-button" issues in order to retain their power. Knee-jerk conservatives will vote for McSame in order to thwart the evil O'Same, and knee-jerk progressives will vote for O'Same in order to thwart the evil McSame. As long as knee-jerks vote for one of the corporate whores, a corporate whore will win.

Whichever corporate whore wins, we'll have wasteful military spending. That's a polite name for stealing trillions from the taxes paid by working americans, killing a few thousand poor soldiers to distract the knee-jerks, and funneling obscene no-bid "profits" to the parasites.

Whichever corporate whore wins, the parasites will continue to unconstitutionally spy on working, taxpaying, law-abiding Americans.

Whichever corporate whore wins, billionaire parasites will continue to gamble. They'll keep their winnings, and taxpayers will be forced to cover their losses.

One of the corporate whores will rename our combat troops "military advisors", which will no doubt be a great comfort to their widows and orphans. He will also help his CEO buddies by making our awful system of corporate healthcare compulsory. And the other corporate whore is sadly senile.

So why would anyone vote for McSame or O'Same?

No thinking people will. Nobody who values Democracy, Liberty, Freedom, and the Bill of Rights will.

So if you're a thinking patriotic American, go see your Dim neighbors and your Repug neighbors right now and explain to them the importance of voting third party.

» login or register to post comments

Pejoratives, Progressives, Libertarians and Nader

Submitted by hterrya on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 12:56pm.
"...The real struggle is between working Americans and parasites. The corporate Dims and corporate Repugs exploit a small number of "hot-button" issues in order to retain their power. Knee-jerk conservatives will vote for McSame in order to thwart the evil O'Same, and knee-jerk progressives will vote for O'Same in order to thwart the evil McSame..." (Submitted by Mike5000 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 6:34pm.) ... Nice try to dis the progressives in the Democratic Party by calling them "Dims." The Libertarians and Ralph Nader do that all the time. You are a day late and a pejorative short, pal. As a progressive, I have yet to decide whether my vote will go to Obama or to the Green Party. Obama's actions (not his rhetoric, or YOUR rhetoric) in the next hundred days will determine who gets my vote. It certainly won't go to Barr or Nader.
» login or register to post comments

Please don't call yourself progressive

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:38pm.
Progressives don't support candidates who want to increase military spending beyond today's insane levels.

Progressives don't support candidates who are so opposed to single-payer that they want to make awful corporate healthcare compulsory.

Progressives don't support candidates who have promised that the Iraq war will continue for at least four years under their watch. Renaming combat soldiers to military advisors just doesn't cut it.

Progressives don't support candidates who support unconstitutional spying on American citizens.

Progressives don't support candidates who have promised to ramp up the occupation of Afghanistan. Ever noticed that the CIA mafia loves wars in drug hotspots?

Progressives don't support candidates who consistently favor corporate irresponsibility over working Americans.

The fact that you'd even consider voting for O'Same means that you are not a progressive. Please don't call yourself a progressive. Cynthia and Ralph are progressives. O'Same supporters are either deluded ("knee jerk Dims") or somewhere to the right of Nixon.

» login or register to post comments

Please Don't Tell Me What to Call Myself

Submitted by hterrya on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 2:11pm.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is a progressive, and he has consistently been my candidate for President. He is still describing himself as a Democrat. Ralph Nader, like you, seems to have a pejorative at hand when he runs out of ideas. Calling Kucinich a "Dim" is a DUMB thing to do. Remember, this thread is about what should have been an Impeachment hearing, and Kucinich showed himself to be a true progressive in that hearing. Nader could learn a thing or two from Kucinich, but he won't. Like you, he thinks he knows EVERYTHING. That ain't progressive, in my book.
» login or register to post comments

Kucinich is progressive

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 4:20pm.
Kucinich is progressive. Unlike McSame and O'Same, Dennis has consistently opposed the Iraq War. Unlike McSame and O'Same, Dennis has consistently supported progressive ideals including single-payer. But Dennis is no longer a presidential candidate.

You indicated that you would consider voting for O'Same, despite his wingnut polices. Ralph and Cynthia and Dennis are progressives. You are not.

» login or register to post comments

At Least We Agree on Kucinich.

Submitted by hterrya on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 4:33pm.
Rep. Kucinich has said he would support the Democratic candidate. I haven't. But that doesn't make Kucinich anything "less" than a progressive. I'd match him against YOU and Nader any time.
» login or register to post comments

It's the POLICIES, hterrya

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 6:21pm.
Take a look at this thread, hterrya. If Ralph and Cynthia are so bad, why haven't you mentioned their polices? If O'Same is worth voting for, why haven't you mentioned his policies. Why haven't you mentioned any policies whatsoever?

Dubya policies, McSame policies, O'Same policies: bad.

Kucinich policies, Nader policies, McKinney policies: good.

» login or register to post comments

The July 25 Judiciary Committee Hearing Is Just The Beginning

Submitted by crackerjack on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 12:25pm.
"What's next?" "A mass uprising." "Expressed how?" "We elect someone president who's going to end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "Then what'll happen to President George W. Bush II?" "He'll be carted off to the International Court of Criminal Justice, there to be tried for his crimes against humanity." "And the outcome?" "Members of the Jury, have you arrived at a verdict?' "Guilty as charged, your honor."
» login or register to post comments

Who Will Be The Next American Hitler?

Submitted by mcartri on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 11:26am.
In their refusal to place country before party/greed/power, the entire Republican Party, the Democratic leadership and some of their party have laid the foundation for the next fascist to govern America. We are in very deep peril of losing our Democracy. Naomi Wolf's book, "The End of America", presents the case that we are already falling down the abyss of fascism. Obama's FISA vote to cover-up the Bush Crime Family should send a chill down the spines of patriotic Americans. Since when is defending the Constitution considered a weak political position? On August 8, the anniversary of Nixon's resignation, the group "Strange Bedfellows", will be dropping a "Money Bomb" on those politicians who have abandoned the Constitution. Google "Strange Bedfellows" and stand-up against the next American Hitler.
» login or register to post comments

The Republic is over

Submitted by hoopla on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 9:53am.
I will no longer be voting for the Democractic nominee for President. This country is over. The two party system has imploded and both sides are so corrupt, and neither party is upholding the constitution, which is what they are elected for. I'm going to vote for a third party and I will be working all of my contacts to also vote that way. There will be no justice. There is no liberty left in this land and country. The republic has not been honored nor held together. This government is a joke and this is not America anymore. What we are all watching and living through is the end of this great experiment and we the people have failed to hold our government accountable to the laws that have been written. The fact that there will be no impeachment says out loud that both parties are corrupt and they are continuing the massive cover up of all of their crimes. The republic is over.
» login or register to post comments

See Bush IMPEACHMENT in " TREASON " PAINTING compleated in 2001

Submitted by RogerARTcom on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 7:58am.
See Bush IMPEACHMENT in " TREASON " PAINTING compleated in 2001 http://www.RogerART.com OK 2 COPY and PASS IT ON... & ON & ON Till they R All in JAIL... www.RogerART.com /and/ www.OneGlobalCommunity.com /and/ www.EarthBall.org
» login or register to post comments

Still Disgusted!!!!

Submitted by oneeggcream on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 10:51pm.
You know sometimes I just sit and wonder, how on earth did our country get so screwed up? Then I remember, OH it was bad enough when the Republicans had the majority but then the Democrats took over the Senate, the Congress & the House yet they have allowed Bush/Cheney to continue to lie, change the Constitution and get away with what ever they please!!!!! How can these two not be IMPEACHED?? How can the Congress turn there backs on their despicable behavior? What is the Congress afraid of? There has to be answers to these questions but I don't think we will EVER hear them! Congress will allow Bush to end his Presidency without as much as a slap on the wrist! He will ride into the sunset without so much as scar on his disgusting behavior. He will leave us all with less money, more bills, and in some cases NO HOMES, and worst of all one less family member due to his selfishness and compete disregard for human life! There are so many reasons for IMPEACHMENT that each day you could list one and go on for quite some time! This entire government has insulted the American people and I can't imagine anyone being able to fix the mess we are in. IMPEACH BEFORE NOVEMBER 4TH!! Do it for the good of the American people and the world!! Peace to you and yours...
» login or register to post comments

AMEN!!!

Submitted by kroses98 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 1:39am.
I saw about 3 hours of this hearing, and it was spellbinding, especially Bruce Fein, Bob Bar, Vincent Bugliosi, Rocky Anderson, and Liz Holtzman's testimonies. The evidence is overwhelming, and the 2 wimpy Republican witnesses added nothing to the debate. Anyone with a brain who watched this hearing, and who watched Dan Lungren and the other Republicans doing their acrobatics in an effort to stifle that evidence, knows without a doubt the guilt of high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their need to be IMPEACHED immediately!!!!!!!!
» login or register to post comments

Impeachment /not

Submitted by bansidh on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 1:37am.
It looks like one reason Pelosi is determined not to impeach is that torture might be one of the charges and she was involved in allowing it to happen.
» login or register to post comments

WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND IMPEACHMENT

Submitted by rovinggrover on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 9:34pm.
I FOR ONE HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE TREASONOUS MOTHERFUCKERS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE WHO WILL CAST A VOTE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT CAST THAT BALLOT WITH A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE. MAKE IT TWO WRITE-IN CANDIDATES. WHEN I FILL OUT MY BALLOT, IT WILL HAVE TWO NAMES IN THE WRITE-IN CANDIDATE SPOT.THOSE TWO NAMES WILL APPEAR EXACTLY LIKE IT DOES ON THIS PAGE. DENNIS KUCHINICH/RON PAUL ISN'T AMERICA FED UP WITH A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS, THAT FOR THE LAST TWELVE YEARS HAS LOST OR STOLEN FROM THE TAXPAYERS COFFERS, ULTIMATELY TO LEAVE WE THE PEOPLE HOLDING THE BILL TO THE TUNE OF APPROXIMATELY 4 TRILLION DOLLARS,ALL THE WHILE NOT EVEN GIVING THE CORPORTOCRACY A SLAP ON THE HAND FOR ALL OF THE BAD BUSINESS THEY HAVE PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. ISN'T AMERICA TIRED OF HEARING THAT SOME CHILDREN IN AMERICA HAVE GONE TO BED HUNGRY AGAIN TONIGHT, OR THAT CHILDREN CAN'T RECEIVE PROPER MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS ARE TO POOR TO AFFORD MEDICAL INSURANCE. ISN'T AMERICA TIRED OF WATCHING WHILE THE LOCAL POLICE FORCES AND THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN DOWNSIZED OR JUST HAD THE DOORS CLOSED TO SOME STATIONS AND PRECINCTS, BECAUSE ALL OF THE MONIES HAVE BEEN SENT TO WSHINGTON D.C. TO PAY FOR AN ILLEGAL INVASION OF A SOVERIGN NATION THAT ALREADY HAD APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THEIR LAND LOCKED UP IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE NO-FLY ZONE OF THAT VERY COUNTRY. ISN'T AMERICA SICK TO DEATH BECAUSE THE CITIZENS HAVE STOOD BY LISTENING TO THE GREAT COMMANDER IN CHIEF FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS AS HE CONSTANTLY LIES ABOUT HOW HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE SO PROUD OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR MILITARY, AND HOW HE STANDS BEHIND THEM IN THEIR ENDEAVORS TO STAMP OUT TERRORISM GLOBALLY, ALL THE WHILE SHORT CHANGING THEM WITH THE LACK OF SUCH LIFESAVING THINGS AS UP-ARMOR FOR THEIR VEHICLES, INADEQUET BODY ARMOR, HELL EVEN SHORTING THOSE ON THE BATTLE FRONT OF ENOUGH AMMO. ISN'T AMERICA FED UP WITH ELECTING DEMOCRATS TO STOP AMERICA'S CRIME FAMILY GONE INTERNATIONAL, WHO HAPPEN TO OCCUPY THE WHITEHOUSE, AND WE FIND OUT THAT THE VERY PEOPLE THAT WE THE PEOPLE VOTED INTO OFFICE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF COWARDS IN CONGRESS, NOT TO MENTION TRAITORS TO AMERICA, BECAUSE EVERYONE THAT SITS IN CONGRESS TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, NOT THE PEOPLE, NOT THE CORPORTOCRACY, BUT THE CONSTITUTION, SO WHEN THE BIGGEST TRAITOR IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES KNOWN AS NANCY PELOSI TOOK IMPEACMENT OFF OF THE TABLE, SHE IN EFFECT COMMITTED TREASON. YOU SEE SHE NEVER HAD THAT CHOICE. ISN'T AMERICA FED UP WITH THE SORRY EXCUSES AND EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE PRESIDENT LIKE JOHN MCCAIN AND BARAK OBAMA.I MEAN ONE GUY TELLS US HE WANTS TO STAY IN IRAQ FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS, AND WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE HE SURVIVED 6 YEARS IN A PRISONER OF WAR CAMP THAT MAKES HIM ELIGBLE, WHILE THE OTHER ONE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR WITH TENIOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, WHO JUST CAVED IN TO BUSH WITH THE NEWLY WRITTEN FISA BILL, THAT JUST HAPPENS TO GIVE THE TELECOM COMPANIES RETRO IMMUNITY FOR SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITHOUT A WARRANT. ISN'T AMERICA ANGRY THAT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED WITH A CONSTTUTION AND LAWS THAT ENCOMPASS THAT CONSTITUION FOR OVER 230 YEARS ONLY TO HAVE THIS ADMINISTRATION SHRED AND ANNIOLATE THAT CONSTITUTION BY REMOVING HABEAS CORPUS, IMPLEMENTING TORTURE, WIRETAPPING AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF WARRANT, PUTTING PEOPLE ON A NO-FLY LIST FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT PERSON MIGHT HAVE SPOKEN UP AGAINST THIS COWARDLY ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINALS. I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON, HOWEVER THIS SHOULD BE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE ANY TRUE PATRIOT SIT UP AND CRINGE AT THE THOUGHT OF EITHER OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT TO BE ELECTED AND ALLOWED TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN WE THE PEOPLES WHITEHOUSE. AGAIN THERE IS AN ANSWER TO THIS QUANDRY. IT IS CALLED THE WRITE-IN CANIDATE SPOT THAT IS ON ALL PRESIDENTIAL BALLOTS. I AM GOING TO WRITE IN DENNIS KUCHINICH/RON PAUL. AT LEAST THOSE TWO MEN BELIEVE IN, STAND BY, AND WILL DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. IF A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS WRITE THESE MEN IN ON NOVEMBER THIRD, WE STICK BOTH MEN IN A ROOM AND TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE UNTIL JANUARY 8TH TO TELL US WHO WILL BE PRESIDENT AND WHO WILL BE VICE PRESIDENT. I AM QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL GET THE JOB DONE. IF WE THE PEOPLE DON'T USE THIS OPTION ON THIS NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, I FEAR OUR GREAT COUNTRY WILL BE LOST FOR GOOD. JUST THINK ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE.
» login or register to post comments

There is No Need to Use ALL CAPS

Submitted by Carol Burns on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 8:11am.
I understand your frustration. It about equals mine. However, my vote will go to Barack Obama. These hearings need to be about impeachment; no doubt about it. But the fact that the Judiciary Committee is even holding hearings gives me hope, and I have thought about it...a lot.
» login or register to post comments

So Will Mine, BUT......................

Submitted by kroses98 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 11:54am.
What will Barack do about the absence of the "RULE OF LAW" in our country? His legal advisor, "Cass S.," promises that "NOTHING" will be done!!!
» login or register to post comments

We Should Be Concerned....

Submitted by ernieson on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 8:10pm.
about what this president is capable of doing in the remaining months in office. Martial law due to a false flag emergency and the subsequent suspension of elections (HSPD51) are possible. The disrespect for the Constitution and the law and the snubbing of Congressional subpeonas and treating of Congress as an unequal branch of govt would lead one to believe anything is possible with BushCo. He must be reined in with preventive measures. Impeachment and conviction by the Senate are not going to happen.
» login or register to post comments

Agreeing with Ralph Nader

Submitted by bitterale on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 7:56pm.
Regarding comment by neoconned and his distaste of agreeing with Ralph Nader: I ask you to watch the film "An Unreasonable Man" and tell me then it will be distatelful to agree with Ralph Nader. I submit that if on the eve of the election everyone watched that film there would be an unprecidented number of write-ins for Nader. It is long past time we had a consumer advocate in the White House. Deccades of corporate advocacy has not worked out too well for us.
» login or register to post comments

Nader?

Submitted by AZPete on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 10:22am.
Ralph Nader is the reason we have had to put up with the Bush administration for the past 7.5 years. Go ahead and vote for Nader if you want another 4 years of the same (Bush/McCain) gang of criminals.
» login or register to post comments

Uh.....

Submitted by vtjozef on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 2:19pm.
.....bullshit! "Ralph Nader is the reason we have had to put up with the Bush administration for the past 7.5 years. Go ahead and vote for Nader if you want another 4 years of the same (Bush/McCain) gang of criminals." 300,000 Democrats who voted FOR Nader in Florida is one reason why "we have had to put up with the Bush administration for the past 7.5 years." The other reason is that Democrats HAVE KISSED BUSH'S BUTT and they have CAPITULATED and given him everything that has wanted. So please, spare us the stupidity of blaming Nader. If you love the U.S. Constitution perhaps you wouldn't be voting for either side of the one Corporate Party that has shredded it. Republicans = Democrats = Criminals.
» login or register to post comments

Certainly Don't Blame Nader.....

Submitted by GwenP on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:43pm.
As Nader himself stated when so many people (democrats) were angry that he was running in the election, there was so much ammunition that could and should have been used against "W", but wasn't. That election against "W" the first time around should have been a landslide! Instead, Gore played the typical "moderate democtat" role and refused to tell the American public the way it is,and the way things need to be and deserve to be. I'll never forget one debate where Gore and "W" couldn't compliment each other enough! They were both trying so hard to be moderate. It was sickening! I believe that Gore learned a hard lesson after that campaign and is a changed man - a man of principles rather then of politics. Second, that election between Gore and "W" was stolen. Gore was the rightful winner, not only of Florida, but for the presidentcy as well. Third, MANY people are disgusted with our current political system as it now stands. I'm sure there are quite a number of people (both repulicans and democrats) who don't feel represented by their party. Some of the people choose to vote for a third party while others, like myself, WANT to vote for the a third party candidate, but don't want to "throw away our vote". It's vicious cycle because it's only when ALL of us "under-represented" individuals decide we've had enough and ALL vote for a third party will change actually occur. So stop blaming the Nader supporters and focus your blame on those who deserve it.
» login or register to post comments

Gore Won The 2000 Election

Submitted by mcartri on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 11:45am.
AZPete, I voted for Gore and then Kerry. I understand your need to blame Nader for Bush's crimes. The Republican Party and the neocons encourage this view? Why? Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and five robed fascists on the Supreme Court stole the election from the American people. The fix was in before Nader, Butter Fly Ballots and illegally counted military ballots added to the junta take-over. A full recount after the coronation of King George by several news organizations showed Gore had won Florida at all levels of ballot consideration. Fascism cost Gore the election, not Nader or fill-in the blank.
» login or register to post comments

The Democratic Leadership sells us out (again)

Submitted by JosephEBacon on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 10:26pm.

Seems the only Members of Congress fighting for the Constitution are Kucinich, Wexler and Nadler. The rest let Steeney the Weeney put the pressure on them to wimp out.

Steeney the Weeney and Nincompoop Nancy have to go!

» login or register to post comments

Corporate whores

Submitted by Mike5000 on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 5:18pm.
Republicans and Democrats are corporate whores. They fake fights better than TV wrestlers but their real fight is with the American people. They are America's most dangerous enemies by far.

Vote third party. There is no other way short of taking up arms to defend the Constitution.

» login or register to post comments

If You Vote Third Party...

Submitted by Carol Burns on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 8:13am.
...we will have McCain in the White House. Do you really want that?
» login or register to post comments

Maybe not.

Submitted by bettysdad on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:42am.
If everyone that said Nader couldn't win in 2000 voted for him, he would have won.
» login or register to post comments

Courage

Submitted by vtjozef on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 2:24pm.
Crap. You, not voting for a third party is the reason a 3rd party candidate cannot win. YOU are the OBSTRUCTION to a new progressive possibility. Obama = McCain = Criminals. So go ahead and pick the same old choice, again, and again, and again, and again...... and then keep on finding scapegoats but never look in the mirror for who is responsible. Just like G.W. Bush, isn't it?
» login or register to post comments

Have you read Obama's policy documents?

Submitted by Mike5000 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 2:21pm.
One of the corporate whores has promised to ... increase military spending beyond even today's ludicrous levels, continue the war in Iraq for at least four more years, and ramp up the war in Afghanistan. He's so opposed to single-payer healthcare that he has promised to make our appalling corporate healthcare system compulsory. He voted for warrantless wiretaps, and against allowing citizens to hold corporations accountable for illegal spying. Immediately after tricking his supporters into nominating him he flip-flopped his polices. He's a wingnut far to the right of Reagan and Nixon.

The other corporate whore is sadly senile.

Fortunately, there are several patriotic America candidates to chose from. I favor Cynthia or Ralph but even Ron Paul would be better than McSame or O'Same.

Every time Flopama opens his mouth a million teenage girls swoon. That's impressive but not a reason to make a corporate whore President.

» login or register to post comments

The latest polls i've seen...

Submitted by euthyfro on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 1:20pm.
Have an Obama vs. McCain of 47-41 but if it's Obama v. McCain v. Barr v. Nader, Obama takes a double digit lead over McCain. Like so many other metrics, this is one where this years election isn't following the previous rules
» login or register to post comments

They are all in it together

Submitted by neoconned on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 5:14pm.
The Democrats in Congress have been caught with their hands in the anti-terror cookie jar, and the Republicans gleefully watch as the Dems become the target of angry expressions which rightfully belong to the GOP. Never in the history of the United States has it been so evident that there really needs to be a viable third political party to act as the balance of power. Our winner-take-all system has morphed into a modern version of Tammany Hall in which said occupants play both sides of the game against the American people. I hate to agree with Ralph Nader, but the only way to truly express the righteous wrath is to call for a pox on both their political houses of cards. If this nation is to survive as something resembling its historical self, change must come - and Obama isn't going to bring it. It can only come from We, the People. The question is: are we up to the job, or will we allow the rot to continue?
» login or register to post comments

Not Impeaching is a crime

Submitted by phred42 on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 5:01pm.
Not Impeaching is a greater CRIME than anything the Bush Crime Family did to warrant Impeachment
» login or register to post comments