 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 23, 2008 at 19:58:21
Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
Wexler proposed opening impeachment hearings on Cheney. Conyers committee staffer Perry Appelbaum laid out instead a schedule for non-impeachment hearings over the coming 11 months. Conyers' notion is to hold non-impeachment hearings on "the imperial presidency" and run out the clock. I guess that would be sort of like a dozen police officers paying a non-arresting visit to the home of a mass murderer. Seriously? An "imperial" president, and you don't impeach him, and you don't retire or commit suicide? This baffles me.
Now, there are topics that have not been touched in congressional investigations over the past 12 months, such as the Iraq war lies. But a lot of the other topics have already been gone over, just absent the I word. What will differentiate the new non-impeachment hearings from the past year's worth of non-impeachment hearings? Of course, getting witnesses to show up and testify would be a change, but without impeachment, nothing will compel any witnesses to testify who have previously refused.
One of the big topics this group wants to go after is the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and - contrary to the position expressed today by the Democratic leadership - this group was in agreement that Congress should vote on contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. But, even understanding that nothing was going to budge on that any time soon, most of the Congress Members present still refused to back Wexler's proposal.
The chief opponent of impeachment hearings was not Conyers. It was Nadler. Nadler argued strongly against any use of the I word. He argued that Congress should focus on passing bills, even though they will be vetoed, and then pass them again next year.
Arguing for keeping open the possibility of impeachment hearings developing out of the non-impeachment hearings was Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. Daniel Ellsberg was also among those backing impeachment hearings.
Conyers and some subgroup plan to take their proposal for non-impeachment imperial abuse hearings to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to request her blessing. She is, of course, most likely to share Nadler's position. She may have given Nadler his position, or perhaps it originated with Hillary Clinton, but it sounds most likely that Nadler has simply been speaking for himself: he honestly opposes impeachment hearings, even for emperors.
Nadler's constituents have been among the most dedicated activists, many of them repeatedly sitting in at his office for impeachment and going to jail. One group has just set up a website solely to allow people all over the country to Email Nadler on this issue: http://asknadler2impeach.org
Nadler chairs the most relevant subcommittee and could open Cheney impeachment hearings in that subcommittee tomorrow if he chose to do so. The full House voted to send articles of impeachment on Cheney to the Judiciary Committee last November.
Wednesday's meeting was handicapped, of course, because no-one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing impeachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities, bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary Clinton), or both.
Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.
When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
And we wouldn't wait until the next election to reward members of Congress who put impeachment back in the Constitution. The minute Pelosi or Conyers or Nadler opens the door to impeachment hearings, every activist organization in this country and around the world that works on behalf of peace or justice or the rule of law will flood them with flowers, donations, volunteers, and support.
And if Fox News says one word, we will shut it down.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Impeachment Hearings Now
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 40 comments |
|
pros and cons of impeachment
Two comments: 1) In comparing impeachment hearings with other hearings that are less specific, there is an important point to be considered: The Executive will certainly continue to stonewall subpoenas and requests for discovery, claiming executive privilege. The inquiry is not likely to reveal anything new. BUT executive privilege does not apply in impeachment hearings. click here 2) It's true that the Republicans gained house seats and the presidency in 2000, following their ill-founded impeachment hearings in the previous term. However, the 2000 Presidential election was "won" against the will of the majority only by extraordinary political and legal machinations, and it may be that distortions of the Congressional vote count - election theft - was already a factor in the 2000 election. (Evidence for election theft in 2002 and subsequent years has been well-documented.) -Josh Mitteldorf by Josh Mitteldorf (27 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 73 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM  (0+)
|
|
Totally Unacceptable
It is unacceptable for Nadler, Conyers, Pelosi, Reid and others to practice congressional masturbation while our nation and the world continue to burn. There is another war on the agenda, one which will make the current one seem like a cakewalk by comparison. Whether the U.S. or Israel strikes, the result will be the same. Bolton: Israel May Have to Strike Iran Soon [ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125007 ] Russia: "Attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as attack on Russia." by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:36:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment"
AMericans you are the dumbest beasts of burden not impeach but crimes against humanity war crimes these guys got the democrats to pass the bill that in effect protects them no more voting for democrats or republicans If I see a republican or a democrat in office this coming election America is a race of inbred imbeciles by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 2:16:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: War crimes
The only Dem to mention War Crimes is Kucinich and so far he's been blocked by NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS from being able to debate and get his message heard nationaly. It deosn't matter if he can/cannot win it's a matter of keeping him from reaching Americans with the proclamation of impeachment. by RLAnchors (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Cheney
Ok, everyone time to join hands here as AMERICANS her is what we need to do send an e-mail to this address, and get everyone you know to do it send it to your state rep and senaters also. They are trying to stop this by tommorow before they go on vacation. Pounds them with e-mail. Start here with Nancy Pellosi AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov. We cant let him get away with this. Bruce by Bruce Deloney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 6:39:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Maybe Nadler is Right!
Hello David, you might not read my emails but you will probably read this. There are tons of fakes in congress and what is better than fakes recognizing each other. The impeachment effort supported by Wexler and Kucinich is fake and I think Nadler recognizes it; Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democratic leadership are transparently fake. It is very likely that Nadler, behind the scenes, is working on something that would gather bipartisan support that would be stronger than impeachment; at one time, you were asked to support that effort, fell asleep at the wheel, and later blushed in front of a couple hundreds to a color purple for doing so. It might not be late for you, or Jaron Bourke who said: "oh, this is not going to work for us"; I guess they would rather be talkers than doers and p*ssy foot while kids are dying. Anyway, apologies for those readers who don't know what I am talking about. You may go to www.mydemocracy.net and read "The Crime Behind The Criminal Wars!", a crime that is apolitical and the one that should be, not a reason for impeachment, but the more effective treason trials. David, give Lachmann a call. by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 6:47:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: HOW TO END THE BUSH/CHENEY GENOCIDE
I certainly have felt that the right road is to indict, arrest, and try the Bush/Cheney administration in the World court AFTER they leave office. Theirs is a moral genocide as well as a literal genocide of all that is human and just in this world, of all that is safe and free. I will be among the first to work with the strongest activist group to get these people tried AND convicted as private citizens for the crimes they committed while in office, AFTER they leave office. In the meantime, if one more bill to fund an illegal war is presented or passed by this US Congress, I will continue to work hard to hold those who voted for the bill(s) complicit in the "Bush/Cheney Genocide." No more! Impeachment may be "an easy out" for them, although I have fought long and hard for it. Perhaps we should think and act like the leopard who sits hidden in the bushes until its prey is close enough, fooled enough into a complacency of trust, and snap into action in a World court that means something. I would like to believe that this is what our US Congress is doing, but I have little real faith in that. But...you may be right. In the end, my lifelong quest will be to hold these people accountable for the murder of our democracy, the devastation of world citizens, and the decimation of the planet. http://inyourworld.blogstream.com Nan by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 1:21:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hope for "behind the scenes" is hopeless.
Hoping that someone is working behind the scenes is a pretty hopeless fantasy in my book. It seems like unmitigated delusion to have that kind of hope without any evidence whatsoever. by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:46:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Ralph Nader weighed in awhile back
Rep. John Olver, according to a pretty credible report by Ralph Nader, said he doesn't support impeachment because it is his belief if the democrats move on impeachment, Bush et al will attack Iran, declare a state of emergency, impose marshal law, and call off elections. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 7:13:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If this is true,
If true that Bush and company threatened aggressive war and the declaration of martial law should impeachment proceedings be initiated, then that is a very clear, incontrovertible example of TREASON! by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 8:24:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: TREASON WILL WORK
Indeed, you are correct. Treason is FAR more possible and effective than impeachment. Hell, we impeached Clinton over lying about his actions and he remained president! Treason is already possible since we are fighting an undeclared, illegal war, and the administration is in contempt of Congress...we must get these beasts. It's not about vengence; it's about what's behind the curtain--our future is in the hands of the magic controls of fear-mongering propaganda at this point, and we are losing it to this crazy smoke and mirrors mentality that we've bought into. What happened to the generation who helped stop the Vietnam war and topple Nixon? Where did we go? I'm here. I'm fighting. But who's sold out for the big bucks? And how long will those big bucks last? I'm much happier being a poor but thoughtful professor of communications who's unafraid of breaking our youth's hearts with the truth than a multi-gazillionaire living of the blood money of the Bush empire (including Daddy Bush). Nan http://youtube.com/theyareguilty by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:01:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fixed Link For Your Comment
http://youtube.com/theyareguilty by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 1:23:42 AM (0+)
|
|
Here is New Approach to This Impeachment Debate
I have another idea on this David, and it is the historical documentation of an American track record in history showing and proving the crimes committed by those past administrations. In fact it appears as a succession of character to the Oval Office. If you are not a Liar you can't be President, is the real cut out and pattern coming and going American Presidents are left to digest and believe and become when they take the oath of office. Are Americans to accept this? Not a chance. If we can go on a campaign in educating the Public about past administrations who got away with murder and lying it can be effective in moving the people to only elect officials who will support impeachment. In fact there should be a way that past administrations can still be prosecuted and impeached for their sinful record. The fact they are not around to defend themselves would be the ever mounting need for present day incumbants to stand the test of Impeachment on their watch. In fact it should be the honest integrity of all sitting Presidents to ask for Impeachment to make sure they are up and up and being honest with the people. I know if I was President I would want Impeachment to roll forward at any moment, that is even if I didn't break the law, because I did things in the open and believed they are up to par with the Law and Constitution. But, Bush even calling the Constitution a God Damn Piece of Paper, and blantly breaks the law; he certainly does not entertain the idea that if he did something wrong then bring it on! Am I right? He doesn't want to hear the Impeachment word. Past Presidents should be held before Congress as being impeachable because olden days are more known to be corrupt and bad. People were able to get away with more bad things, but that does not mean Present Day Scholars should let them slide. I really think if we can't get these Congress People to support Impeachment of Bush, then we can at least get them to support a new bill that would allow Congress to view the record of past administrations and level Impeachment convictions to the records that there be. This way administrations will think long and hard about their actions, knowing that they will have no control of their records after the fact. If they blow it, they will eventually carry that with them as IMPEACHED throughout time. We could use this as a bargaining chip. They would have to agree, because the record of Past Presidents is so tarnished with guilt it makes you gag. So make it a choice, Impeach for today, or lets get the impeachments of the past cleaned up and put to bed. Here in my article it shows the lies of all the Presidents from Truman to Today. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dom_jerm_071221_impeachment_phobia_o.htm Scott is blocking Impeachment: http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=2891 I wrote a letter to Congressman Scott and to all the people on the Judiciary Committee. He is the only one to answer so far. But he never really said whether he supports it or not. I wrote back asking for his yea or ney and he has not responded. Given the above link, it is clear Scott is obstructiing justice and he will be noted as such as one of the participating members who failed the people as all other prior administrations have done. Here's his letter to me. January 14, 2008 Mr. Dominic Jermano Newport News, VA 23607-4301 Dear Mr. Jermano: Thank you for your letter expressing your support for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. I appreciate you apprising me of your views on this issue. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as this issue comes before me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on other issues which may be of concern to you. Very truly yours, Some quotes by Scott: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. ......Ikster: I say we educate them to why Scott failed to Protect the Constitution, failed to learn about Past Criminal Administrations, and would not support Impeachment to protect the rule of law. We can continue our progress as a Nation toward the promise that all people are created equal and that our Nation will treat every person in that spirit. .....Ikster: Funny how Scott thinks Bush is somehow exempt from this by being allowed to break the law. And Let's hear Scott say that to people in Iraq, or new Iraq people who have come to America, after their kids, and family members were mowed down, and murdered. While there are many obstacles that deter students from going to college, finances by no means should be the deciding factor. The more to life reason they don't impeach Bush is because he was able to get rid of Saddam. They say would it better if Saddam is still in power today or not? Clearly they believe they are right. But I say though it may seem better for the Iraqi people, Israel, and even Iran, and the USA, there is a big looming problem you can't make disappear. And that problem is in the way you got rid of him. Bush & company clearly broke the law, tortures, the phoney trial of Saddam, the slaughter of innocent children, grandparents, mothers, and fathers. It is so terrible that some people were probably just protecting their families and the USA just murdered them, labeling them as Bathists or terrorists. Although we can find trenches of people Saddam killed, we can also find even more people that America slaughtered as well. And America didn't count bodies or try to identify who they were. At least Saddam knew who he was killing. This is the trouble that will not go away from Bush and Cheney, So if any one gives you that argument that is it better without Saddam or not......just tell them to hang their heads in shame and think about what I have said. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 7:35:03 AM (0+)
|
|
I dont buy any of the Dimos excuses
They will continue to fiddle around as the new Rome burns. The bag men will make the rounds and distibute a portion of that missing Pentagon money to the criminal congress, and those who have been a hard sell might get the pictures of themselves with prostitutes as a little souvenir from the SS, sorry from the CIA. Our youth will continue fighting the wars of the mini-state in Iran or Pakistan. Theres just a few little problems. We dont have the manpower, the industry or the funds to fight a world war right now. All the steel, computers and many other items needed to wage war are being built in China, and even if they were to sell to us being at war with us we dont have the cash. The neo-con sabotage of this nation will continue until the economy is wrecked and only scorched earth remains of what was a great nation. This is all destruction by design and the congress is playing right along with the script. The neo-cons have promised a hundred year war in the ME, I dont think we can last that long. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 7:37:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Attacking Iran
That is why, any effort to remove Bush and Cheney should be very swift. I am not sure if you managed to read the material on www.mydemocracy.net A whiff of the issue in mainstream would empty the White House in a couple of days. The trials will take place after they vacate. by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 8:00:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: EXACTLY MY POINT!!
Read my response to you earlier, Maher. I totally agree and have for more than two years. Wait...try them in the World court where they certainly will be found to be among the worst of criminals. It's what I call "pulling a Milosevic." Nan http://inyourworld.blogstream.com by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 1:27:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Crimes
The idea to document the crimes is on target. This could be done through "non-impleachment hearings" and if what was laid out there roused public sentiment enough, then there could be a serious move to impeachment. In reality, it does not look to me like Nadler is blocking impeachment. He is blocking a critical step in the impeachment process. This is not the same thing because it does not appear that impeachment would occur if the process was started. And the argument that legislation is more important than impeachment has a lot of validity, IMHO. Impeachment takes over everything. And it takes time, and we are less than a year until these folks are out of office anyway. Past experience doesn't necessarily indicate how the public would react this time. My guess is that much of the public would regard it as partisan bickering. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 8:51:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: People ARE documenting the war crimes
Many of us are studying this day and night and working away on all kinds of constituencies. I go on raw story, tpm muckraker ICH and all over the place and just tell people now they can do something and that this IS about war crimes. I built an impeachment/war crimes swicki anyone can use!! I live in Canada and blast away at them night and day about their war crimes and have begun to post more regularly about that here on OpEd News. I think the US is so preoccupied with itself IT CANNOT HEAR WHAT I AM SAYING .. link with other people in the world, now, before it really is too late. Other nations understand the human rights and war crimes vernacular but no effort to reach them with a petition or anything. I did that, I asked for help and no one was willing to help. So I just soldier on - right now I am attracting many young people from the middle east on digg. They should know we are really trying. I wrote an article here .. on the kickoff of the peition - it's the very best I can do right now, but NOTHING LIKE IT EXISTS. I understand that if people don't sign on to stop Bush and Cheney (as architects of an illegal war and guilty of multiple war crimes) then the US IS indeed open to attack - and it really is time that the American impeachment understood and conveyed properly how frightening to the rest of the world this actually is. www.thepeitionsite/petition/735250776 impeach.to.end.war.crimes@gmail.com It IS a start and I do wish that American activists would get involved. What is there to lose? the other ways haven't worked! We need the entire international community screaming out at the same time to push the US media to act - even the Sibel Edmonds story is having REAL problems, but al l over the world the story IS winding its way around, I know I have an alert on all the time and WATCH to see. The one on impeachment (H Res 333) really isn't picking up all that much .. My real complaint with the impeachment movement is it tends to try the same old, same old which hasn't work (the politize the Stoopid congress approach .. bashing away or explaining to people that CONgress IS at fault) , the rest of the world does NOT understand why they are left out. Impeachment could get some heavy indictments for things like breaking the Presidential Records Act - but the war crimes tribunal approach requires we GET THESE SUBPOENAS. Can't tell me that Conyers does not know that by now. Wexler is SURE to know .. he's a lawyer from Georgetown. If you want some action and some press, help me out if you will. It coud really put on the pressure. Virginia by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 9:53:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The first Tribunal on Bush's War Crimes already happened
http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/42 by Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 7:11:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Impeachment is essential
This is my personal opinion on impeachment. It is essential or else we are inviting a future attack on our Constitution by the same forces. We only had to experience this one because of the previous lack of action against Nixon. His pardon offers the evidence that no Executive will ever be held accountable. We must hold them accountable and we must also demonstrate the will that any pardon will also have a price that that executive will be paid for by the executive responsible. My Congressman recently jumped on board by calling for impeachment of Cheney: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/michaudimpeach.pdf It is our government. The Shadow government must be drawn out into the light and exposed for the vampires that they truly are. Semper Fidelis by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Impeachment vs. Treason
I find "Maher's" enlightened prospective remarkable. The treason case is most certainly where impeachment should lead; therefore, cut through the chase and get on with the Bushgate. 935 LIES or "untruths" if you wish to sugarcoat the word, "lie". Any deception, in my opinion, is "DISHONEST". I've been digging into details within the constitution and the Founders wishes and guidance, and I have notion to believe that Hillary being President, might well fall under the conditions of "Title of Nobility". I am a pessimist and I am quite skeptical and not easily gulled. I have supported impeachment, but Treason is what those 935 Lies impose on Mister Bush, Mister Cheney and all the Executive members that continue to champion this war and this "terror" that reigns on a people, not us, but continues to tell us that we are threatened, when indeed the real terrorist Government is and has been the israeli, which indeed, does not represent the true Jewish citizens of both America and Israel. They (Gov)represent the elite of Israel, the militant Israel, and the inhumane ventures of Israel on Palestinians and others in the mid east desert countries. April will be the month, I predict, that invokes action regardless whether impeachment or trials are initiated. Scott McClellan's 'canary in the coal mine', will open eyes around the country hopefully and promote a uniting of citizens to remove our Government, including impeaching/firing Nancy Pelosi, and all others that continue to promote a war on terrorism AGAINST the Americans when truly it is America and Israel terrorizing the world with militant dominance , torture, and poverty. The constitution is clear,"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, that whenever any Form of the Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of THE PEOPLE to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government....when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, envinces a design to reduce them under aboslute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY to throw off such Government, and to provide New Guards for their Future and Security". Americans have become weak and preoccupied with the pursuit of financial security and daily means. However, Americans are resilient and we can get our Republic back but it will take the masses and will require sacrifice and patriotism similar to the civil war and the British war of the beginning of the Colonies. Today's war is against the "NEW KING", the "corporations" that control we the people, our MEDIA, and our Government officials. Say Happy Birthday to John Hancock (Jan 23, 1737) yesterday. He lives on. by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 9:32:03 AM (0+)
|
|
There are too many arguments for Impeachmnt!
The question is not whether we should impeach or not, but why it hasn't been done already. If they suspect he might start a war to circumvent the impeachment process, then the Joint Chief's need to be apprised of that possibility, hopefully negating any action on his part that could directly lead to war. This is a process that must be started to save this country, and anything less will result in the eventual loss of our democratic republic. Why Is There Even An Argument In Regard Impeachment William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM (0+)
|
|
A call to constitutional scholars:
is there a mechanism for removing congress people who are derilict in their duty, or who are incompetent, or who are not loyal to the interests of the American people? by George Washington (188 articles, 27 quicklinks, 189 diaries, 219 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What we can do to corrupt legislators
Don't vote for them in the future or...wait until they are not public officials and sue them under the law for corruption and negligence of duty. These people are our employees, but we hired them by voting for them; I do believe unless they can be proved to have committed aggregious crimes, there is little we can do once they're in office. However, we can NOT put or keep them in office again, and if their disgressions are criminal, we can prosecute them under the law. Best I can do...any other thoughts? Nan by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 3:44:20 PM (0+)
|
|
The BIG Question
The big question is why after all the numerous reasons to impeach we haven't seen real movement to do so by those that have the power to implement it. What I'm about to propose is way out there but when you take it all into context it adds up. I've noticed over the past 7 years where those of influence would go into a meeting with bush&co. and then come out signing the praises of those they went to condemn. It was puzzling to say the least and would conjure-up dark thoughts of blackmail or something even more sinister. It's the more sinister part we're about to explore. To wit what we have now is not a functioning government, or government at all, but an on-going criminal organization of staggering proportions, with unlimited money, power and influence. It crosses all boundaries, cultures and encompasses criminal elements from so-called intelligence agencies corrupt governments of other nations and mega-international corporations. The only function of this organization is to do what all criminal organizations do and that's to take the resources of the many and place them into the hands of the few. And they use all means of persuasion, extortion, intimidation, threat, all the tools used by any criminal organization are applied and more. We can start with 9/11. We could start with the 2000 election, or even go back generations, but 9/11 did indeed change everything. Let's take it for a fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Not only blatant, but obvious and executed with in your face bravado. The shock of accepting this is enough in itself to intimidate anyone. I've heard it on more than one occasion where someone would say, "well if that's true, than all is really lost." And indeed that's the premise. Put yourself in this situation. Say you have a grievance and were influential enough to present it to the powers that be. You're taken into a room and before you is placed all the evidence of 9/11. Who was behind it, how it was pulled off, how the media is controlled, the influence in controlling the courts, investigations, enough to make the extent of the criminal organization make your blood run cold. What would you do? What could you do? Knowing this organization has the power to commit mass murder in broad daylight and get away with it, what would you do? Using Sen. Wellstone's plain crashed killing him and his family as an example of what could happen to you if you bucked the organization, or Anthrax that was sent to Dashle and Leahy, which was traced back to our military base, and it's investigation stopped, wouldn't that be enough to have you stand down? Just looking at the timing of those events draws suspicion. Now look at all the lame reasons given for not touching anyone in this organization - do they make sense? Who has been held accountable? Save for one greedy lobbyist and a few low-lying politicians who's crimes were so obvious as to not be ignored and didn't effect the organization, no one from the higher echelon of the organization has been touched. What has been the effect of any of the investigations so far? Who's been held accountable for ignoring subpoenas or destroying evidence? If you or I committed the above would we be running around free, let alone giving speeches or allowed to continue in our jobs, or in many cases promoted? This organization didn't happen overnight. One could make an argument that it's been there for generations by tracing organizations, groups, agencies and families. It's reached it's zenith and now is so entrenched as to be near impossible to eradicate through normal means, but rather requires a total uprising and revolution. For if what I propose is true, I see no other recourse and it's the only explanation that makes sense. "The tree of liberty must be nourished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson That time has come. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 1:28:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Good Lord
Comments advocate everything from anarchy to hoping the World Court will do what America is not able to do (it won't) to assessing the most weird reasons not to impeach. Pelosi and Co. will not impeach because Democrats have been so deeply complicit with every single impeachable offense. They are terrified of what an impeachment hearing and subsequent trial would expose. As to hoping a World Court will step in to adjudicate what Americans have no stomach for--what are you people smoking? by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:11:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nail on the Head
you said: Pelosi and Co. will not impeach because Democrats have been so deeply complicit with every single impeachable offense. They are terrified of what an impeachment hearing and subsequent trial would expose. And I think you are precisely on target. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 6:51:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: GOOD LORD DEEPLY COMPLICIT
JIM THAT THE TRUTH AND THE HOLD TRUTH AGREED ALL 373 OF THEM WHO VOTED TO GIVE BUSH HIS OWN WAR DECLARING POWERS FOR IRAQ IS GUILITY OF VIOLATING HIS/ HER OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND IS GUILITY OF VIOLATING 18 USC 241-- CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CITIZEN RIGHTS OF US SOLDIERS TO BE SENT TO WAR ONLY ON THE EXPRESSED ORDER OF CONGRESS. HJR- 114 NOT A ONE DIMENSIONAL CONGRESSIONAL CRIME. WHEN BUSH SIGNED IT INTO LAW-- CONTRARY TO HIS OATH FAITHFULLY TO EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STSTES., AND TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. FROM ALL THREE OF NIXON'S ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, JULY 1974-- IT BECAME PUBLIC LAW 107-243. IT BECAME, UNDER 18 USC 241, A CONSPIRACY OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS, CONGRESS AND THIS PRESIDENT USED AN UNCONSITUTIONAL FEDERAL STATUTE TO VIOLATE AND OVERRRIDE THE SUPTEME LAW OF THE LAND. CONSPIRING TO COMMIT FELONY MURDER OF US SOLDIERS IN VIOLATION OF 18 UDC 241. SO JIM WHAT YOU SAID IS TRUE IF IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHERE TO HAPPEN THE TRUTH WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT, AND CONGRESS WOULD BASICALLY BE IMPEACHING THEM SELFS. OR WORST. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Blowing 2008
I believe the failure of the Dem leadership to take some sort of action against this criminal adminstration is putting the 2008 "slam dunk" election in jeopardy. It's marking the Dems as weak, which they are, and putting a huge wet blanket over the Democratic base and high voter turnout. Imagine the enthusiasm and sharpened focus every working American would have if the Dems were to demonstrate that the rule of law applies to the mighty as well as the meek. Instead, Pelosi and others are demonstrating that elected officials in high places will protect other elected officials in high places FROM the rule of law. Saying they don't have the votes is like a police officer failing to arrest a criminal because she doesn't know if the D.A. is guaranteed to win the case in court. Did these hankie-wringers learn nothing at all from the savage attacks of Carl Rove? by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:36:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Right on
Your comment makes one wonder whether maintaining the status quo of voter disenfranchisement and inept political representation are the intended objective. by Tom Chechatka (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 57 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Why Are Treason Trials Important?
Treason trials are important because they will be the two by four across the heads of sleepy Americans to wake them up and have them protect their democracy. Treason trials are important because they will be the two by four across the heads of future politicians and leaders to wake them up to the fact that there are consequences to betraying the public trust. One of the biggest mistakes in American politics was the pardon of Nixon. That allowed Reagan to pardon the Iran/Contra criminals and the pardons have continued since, the most recent being Scooter Libby. By the way, all those in public office, sworn to protect the country and the constitution, by failing to act on prosecuting an act of treason can easily be charged with misprision of treason. Last February, was able to reach the president of a large civic organization with direct contact with Conyers and convince him to call Conyers and ask him where he stood on the issue. He emailed me back the following: This guy would not have emailed me such a response unless he either spoke with Conyers or with a very Sr. aid who can speak on his behalf. If you can make it back to the website www.mydemocracy.net you may want to read "Taming the Beast!" and "The Mass Killing of the Good Options!" by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 7:42:48 AM (0+)
|
|
The notion of impeachment is simply silly
From my longer response here: The current target of Mr Swanson’s ire is Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). I was going to make some crack about if Mr Nadler was standing in the way, nothing could get past him, but the formerly very rotund Manhattan Democrat had bariatric surgery to induce weight loss back in 2002. But, even though I dislike almost all of Mr Nadler’s politics, the notion that a legislator ought to focus on legislation seems like a fairly practical notion. What Mr Swanson and the rest of the impractical left fail understand is that the mainstream Democrats are a little too smart to go for impeachment. Pursuing impeachment would: I’m certain that if I continue to read OpEdNews, I’ll find “impeach now!” articles through the spring, into the long, hot summer, and proceeding into the fall. But as I (briefly) looked at Mr Swanson’s site, I have to wonder: being so heavily invested in impeachment, when President Bush and Vice President Cheney leave office peacefully at noon on January 20, 2009, what will Mr Swanson have left in his life? The Democrats regained the majority a whole year ago; if they weren't going to try impeachment with two years left in President Bush's term, why would anyone think that they'd do so with less than a year remaining? by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 5:58:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dana is dead wrong.
Historically, impeachment helps the impeaching party. That's the fact. Besides, there are times that our nation and the Constitution need defense because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the political calculations of the type Dana wants us to endorse (even though I do find those calculations to be incorrect on their own merrits). Who cares what Hillary Clinton wants when it comes to Impeachment. If Dana does that's fiine for Dana, but not an argument against impeachment. There is only one scenario that I would accept as an alternative to impeachment and that is a 100% guarantee that by a Democratic canidate that when they are elected president he or she would open criminal investitgation by the Justice Department. So far only Kuciich who supports impeachment has said a criminal investigation is appropriate. by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:43:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So Tell me This?
So tell me this! If we had a stellar President everyone liked and on the last day of his watch he committed an egregious crime, such as wiping out Iran with the entire nuclear arsenal, and lying and doing things that clearly are impeachable, you stand and mean to tell me it is impossible to go forward with Impeachment proceedings because of the lack of time? Excuse me, but that is the point. There is no time constraint in impeaching, whether we get him now or after the elections throughout time. I even believe he and Cheney are impeachable even if they are dead. I would settle for Impeachment hearings with little MSM coverage as the Election focus is maintained. And we should be getting candidates to state their position on this Impeachment issue. Where is Edwards on this? Not a PEEP from the great attorney? Give me an enema for the sake of $hit! by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 7:46:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dana: A very Narrow and Mistaken View
[ http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/300/ ] by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 8:53:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Good humor line.
Seriously? An "imperial" president, and you don't impeach him, and you don't retire or commit suicide? This baffles me. Ha! ". . .and you don't retire or commit suicide?" That's a great line. Luv it. by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:36:39 PM (0+)
|
|
How many soccer mommies and daddies are on this forum?
I hear from many that justice needs to be delayed in order for the democrats to win. Win what??? You should leave winning for the sake of winning for the washed up soccer moms and dads and think of the leadership of both parties is doing to this country. by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 8:53:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Treason It Is
And treason it has been for some time now. And however many of whichever party must fall, let us proceed to root the criminals out. There is no more time for hero fantasies and rationalizations, it is time for a line in the sand to be drawn. Without our taking this step, there is no tomorrow. AN OPEN LETTER TO AMY GOODMAN, BY SEAN MADDEN by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Jan 25, 2008 at 9:01:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WHERE AMY, DOES YOUR LOYALITY LIE?
WELL LINK TV WAS FUNDED I.8 MILLION DOLLORS BY THE CIA FORD FOUNDATION IN 2005, I THINK WE KNOW WHERE AMY'S LOYALITYS LIE, AN LIE by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:55:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Been Wondering about Amy!
Thanks for the info. Been trying to get Amy to pick up the story I even managed to make arrangements with one of her producers to meet me in NY when I attended The World Can't Wait Emergency Conference on Impeachment. It was a waste of time on all fronts. The Conference, even though those who attended were wonderful, sincere, energetic people, the organizers had a built-in agenda. The organizers were not interested in results, they were more interested in building up the organization; basically, selling people pipe dreams. Oh, Amy's producer stood me up. The highlight of that visit to NY, which at the time cost me a third of my total assets, is that I got David Swanson to turn purple. He had to admit at one of the workshops, about 200 in attendance, that he did not read any of my emails. Each and every one of the emails was important and I would call him afterwards to make sure he received it and he would say yes and promise to read it. I found out in NY that all were empty promises. Anyway, following the conference, David did email me back and gave me a link on his website, afterdowningstreet, where my The acts of the Bush administration and their enablers in congress warrant a violent rebellion yet there are those among us who claim leadership that are suppressing any effective peaceful confrontation. We need not only wonder about Amy but many others. by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:14:00 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
