Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[Skeptic Ginger]

Governments have never killed citizens for arbitrary reasons?

Of course they have, and by your thought process if the Congress writes such a law then the Executive must enforce said law until the courts rule upon the law.

What part of "gets an injunction" did you not understand?

 

[INRM]

Skeptigirl,

What will happen is future presidents will be emboldened by Bush's actions and will feel free to engage in the same acts, if not even worse acts without fear of punishment.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Skeptigirl,

What will happen is future presidents will be emboldened by Bush's actions and will feel free to engage in the same acts, if not even worse acts without fear of punishment.

This is the natural progression of government.

 

[Cicero]

You would love to compare a relentless campaign to get Clinton which resulted in entrapping him to lie abut cheating on his wife to the Bush crimes. The comparison is laughable.

I'm not the one making the comparison. Your professor Turley made legal arguments in favor of Clinton's impeachment and now legal arguments in favor of a Bush impeachment. You seem to prefer an a la carte arrangement with Turley's jurisprudence when it comes to impeachments. Either his application of the impeachment article is valid in both cases or invalid in both. Which is it?

 

[Loss Leader]

The esquire in this thread has told us that Oaths mean nothing.

Interesting position from an attorney.

Reported.

 

[INRM]

My current opinion is that the democrats in power now who want to prevent these impeachments from coming to being should never be re-elected. Not that I'm saying that people shouldn't vote for any democrat, but the ones currently who are against impeaching Bush and Cheney, I say hell yeah we should never elect these individuals again.

And BTW: The comment about this (Leaders getting away with more and more crap) being the natural progression of government is a cop-out and a poor excuse. It's like saying people always die so we shouldn't bother trying to preserve human life -- Of course we will all die eventually, but we should try and delay it as long as we can. That's my opinion.

 

[Darat]

Clinton derail split to new thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3770076#post3770076

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Daylight]

From skeptigirl's link above I think these words are important

OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.

TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.

But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.

OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?

TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.

What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.

And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.

But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.

OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.

Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.

TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.

The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.

And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.

OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?

TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.

One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.

What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.

 

[SezMe]

Loss Leader, thanks for your contribution to this thread so far. I've learned a thing or two but still have a couple of questions. So I'd like to posit a hypothetical case and get your feedback.

I am well aware that some small (that is, of gnome-like proportions) posters may well confuse this hypothetical with the real world but I want to take that risk to further my understanding of USA jurisprudence. I have every confidence that you agree with me that stupidity on the part of some elements of the population should not interfere with the persuit of knowledge by other segments of that same population.

Suppose congress passes and the president signs a bill that says males cannot wear a red hat. Subsequently, a male is arrested for wearing a red hat and the case goes to court. The prosecution introduces into evidence a strand of hair taken from the red hat whose DNA is incontrovertibly linked to the defendant. The defense claims that "chain of custody" laws were not observed so the DNA is inadmissable.

The defendant is convicted and appeals...up to the Supremes.

Based on what you have said, they will not have any interest in the hair or DNA because those are the facts of the case. They are only interested in the law of the case.

Suppose the chain-of-custody laws were not complied with. Would that non-compliance be considered? Or would the Supremes only concern themselves with the consitutionality of the chain-of-custody law itself? If my question is not clear or my example too dumb let me know and I'll try again.

Finally, while typing this, another question arose in my mind. Do the Supremes consider ONLY constitutional law cases or do they weigh in on other (I have no idea what "other" might be) issues?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Loss Leader]

Suppose congress passes and the president signs a bill that says males cannot wear a red hat. Subsequently, a male is arrested for wearing a red hat and the case goes to court. The prosecution introduces into evidence a strand of hair taken from the red hat whose DNA is incontrovertibly linked to the defendant. The defense claims that "chain of custody" laws were not observed so the DNA is inadmissable.

The defendant is convicted and appeals...up to the Supremes.

Based on what you have said, they will not have any interest in the hair or DNA because those are the facts of the case. They are only interested in the law of the case.

Oy vey. Okay, let me try to answer you.

Appellate courts are interested only in matters of law. They decide how the law should be applied to a case. So, the law says that a person may be searched only upon "probable cause," the appellate courts decide whether, on those facts, the police had probable cause. They explain, amplify and expand a law by showing how the general law should be applied in specific cases.

In your hypothetical, the appellate court would be interested in whether the law of "chain of custody" was actually obeyed. Perhaps the hat went to a private lab that consults with the police for testing. Is the private lab enough of a government entity to preserve the chain of custody? Is the rule about chain of custody too loose to guarantee a defendant due process? Is the entire red hat statute constitutional given the equal protection clause (and the First Amendment)? These are issues that the appellate courts decide.

Suppose the chain-of-custody laws were not complied with. Would that non-compliance be considered?

How was it not complied with? Why does the prosecutor think it was complied with? Why does the prosecutor think that such non-compliance doesn't matter? The law of chain of custody is, like all laws, very general. It's not even a statute, really. It's just a judicially-created outgrowth of basic rules of evidence. The appellate courts would be concerned with how that law is applied to the facts of this particular case.

Or would the Supremes only concern themselves with the consitutionality of the chain-of-custody law itself?

No, appellate courts concern themselves with how laws are interpreted in specific cases as well as whether such laws are, in any part, illegal in and of themselves.

Do the Supremes consider ONLY constitutional law cases or do they weigh in on other (I have no idea what "other" might be) issues?

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of law. It wasn't until 14 years after the Court had been created, that they even took up an issue of constitutional law.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In the Libby case, Cheney claimed the authority to unclassify secrets. That's why no further actions were pursued. Also on the obstruction charges, they obstructed evidence gathering.

It was delegated to him, we hear, by the President. Likewise, officials in the Defense Department are delegated the authority to declassify some classified documents. All of these people are in the Executive Branch. I have already expressed my opinion, frequently, of my contempt for suits, be they GOP (who of late have been the target of my frustration) or otherwise who don't grasp why OPSEC is what it is, and why it is important. Loose lips sink ships. The leakathon that began shortly after 9-11 still pisses me off.

But on the producing propaganda for domestic consumption, clear legal violations occurred. If there wasn't a law that prohibited sending covert operatives to feed propaganda to the press, don't you think there should be?

Should? Interesting question.

How do you classify a spin master like Karl Rove or James Carville: a professional liar? A professional propagandist? So far, I don't think American politics has any legal constraints against making half truths into political material. To get charged for fraud, libel, or slander, the burden of proof is rather stringent.

Then there are all the war crimes, abducting a couple citizens among all the other renditions, torture, suspending habeas corpus with no authority to do so. We are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. They have the force of law.

Italics indicate a point slightly overstated. The last policy I saw on that, a few years ago, specifically excused citizens from and targeted non citizens. Still a thorny legal point, for example, when you consider the legally sanctioned immigrants with green cards who are working their way to citizenship.

Geneva Conventions have the force of law when enforced, like any international law. When people get punished, as did some of the soldiers in the Abu Ghraib mess (and IMO not enough of the leadership, both in uniform and civilian) then the US in indeed enforcing the law. You might want to ask Lindy England about that. When some Marines and a Sailor get courtmartialed for a murder (see the thread Matteo Martini started some months ago on that case) the US is enforcing those laws.

What was your point again?

We haven't even gotten into disregard for separation of powers by refusing to enforce Congressional mandates and laws. The Supreme court has ruled that line item vetos are unconstitutional.

The tension between power of executive and legislative branch is as old as the Constitution's ratification. The push and shove between those branches is not something the Bush administration made up. See FDR's trying to stack the Supreme Court as one example among many.

Then you have the corrupt political appointments and the attempt to subvert the Department of Justice.

Not interested in dealing with the spin in that statement. That said, I am glad Gonzo is gone.

Again, do you believe the law allows the President to use the DoJ for political purposes?

No. My belief and what the suits in Washington actually do rarely match. Are we going to go back to the FBI files abused by the Clintons, the FBI surveillance of MLK, and rehash this all over again?

Which brings up the use of the GAO and other budget powers for overt political campaigning. Even the Peace Corp was used to promote the Republican Party.

This is interesting. Pres Clinton used AF One and the SS escort (an old friend recently retired from the SS) for political campaigning trips on behalf of his party.

Was he breaking the law?

Could you provide a neutral source for the Peace Corps thing? I am intrigued.

Oh, and it was illegal for the White House to use the Republican Party email system. There is a law that says they cannot destroy the public record.

IIRC, use of the Republican Party emails system by members of that party in government is supposed to be confined to Republican Party business, not general executive or legislative branch business.

Is that what you are referring to?

ETA: I already commented on this matter in the thread pertaining to it.

Pentagon’s Pundits: A Look at the Defense Department’s Propaganda Program
Why no prosecution on this legal violation? Because Bush controled the DoJ. Who was supposed to file the charges?

And Clinton controlled the DoJ when he was President. Your who was supposed to filed charges question is a good one, and I think I'll ask LL to explain it.

DR

 

[Fnord]

Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

Too little, too late. Nice try, though.

 

[Pardalis]

Seriously, out of the 35, which ones are really impeachable?

 

[davefoc]

Seriously, out of the 35, which ones are really impeachable?

They all are or none are depending on the eye of the beholder. As far as I can see there are no objective standards for what is required to remove the president via an impeachment proceeding.

I think the best case for an impeachable offense was the firing of the US Attorney as part of an effort to subvert the rule of law. The most significant issues from my perspective are what role did the president play in the affair and what role did he play in the coverup. The answer to those questions aren't known right now because the executive branch has not cooperated with congressional attempts to determine the answers to those questions.

But if that was the only issue would it be in the interest of the nation to institute an impeachment proceeding to determine the facts and remove the president if he was found to be an active player in the conspiracy? I'm not sure. The congress itself cooperated when it (apparently unknowingly) passed legislation that allowed US Attorneys to be replaced without congressional review. That is just one of many confounding details here and the end result of trial on this issue is very unlikely to produce a definitive result. Partisan spinning by both sides would undermine what little ability a proceeding would have to come to an objective decision.

The fact of the matter is that US system just doesn't allow for the removal of a president for most conceivable transgressions short of overwhelming evidence of a highly significant misdeed. Whether that is the way it should be or not, I'm not sure.

In the end, I think it worked in the Clinton case. While I think there was clear evidence of misdeeds and a horrible lack of judgment on the part of Clinton I think the country was best served by not removing him from office. Has it worked in the Bush case? The fact is the country was aware of a lot of the Bush transgressions when it reelected him. Should a congress be capable of over riding a public vote with anything less than the most compelling evidence of misdeeds that are widely accepted to be significant?

For me the most significant ethical violations of the Bush administration have been the crony hiring and crony contracting associated with Iraq. The consequences of this have been horrible, but is impeachment a viable method to have dealt with this?

 

[SezMe]

This is interesting. Pres Clinton used AF One and the SS escort (an old friend recently retired from the SS) for political campaigning trips on behalf of his party.

Was he breaking the law?

This one is easy. Of course when the president wants to travel for political purposes he doesn't ask his travel department to book him a round trip in Cattle Class on JetBlue. He uses AF1 and the SS, of course, go along. Then the Elephants reimburse the government for the expense.

In order to minimize this expense, the president will always do some government work while on travel so the political party's portion will be mnimized.

No legal issues here at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@DR

I don't understand what it is about the laws I specifically posted that Bush violated that you don't seem to understand.

It is expressly forbidden by law for a President to direct political propaganda at US citizens specifically. Bush did that.

The law expressly forbids the Executive Branch from destroying records of their daily business. Therefore all emails sent from the Executive Office are automatically preserved. Bush used the Republican email system to thwart efforts to save records of their activities.

Laws allowing Presidential line item vetoes have been struck down a number of times by the Supreme Court as violating separation of powers. Bush's drastic use of signing statements violated separation of powers by essentially saying he wasn't going to follow laws passed by the Congress. The correct procedure is a veto and if it is overridden, then Congressional power supersedes the Presidential power.

Supporting evidence (again):

Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law

It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's strong standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing.

In a related analysis, the GAO explained that "The publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience."

In case anyone disagrees with the GAO on this point, here's what the White House's own Office of Legal Council had to say, in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal (when it was discovered that the Bush administration had actually paid him to publicly endorse its No Child Left Behind Law):

Over the years, GAO has interpreted "publicity or propaganda" restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called "covert propaganda." ... Consistent with that view, OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda" precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties" would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for "propaganda." (emphasis added)

The key passage here is the phrase, "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." As the Times report documented in detail, the Pentagon's military analyst program did exactly that.

From a new Bill to reinforce the ban

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1951, the following prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for propaganda purposes has been enacted annually: ``No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.''.
(2) On May 19, 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services violated the publicity and propaganda prohibitions by creating fake television new stories for distribution to broadcast stations across the country.
(3) On January 4, 2005, the GAO ruled that the Office of National drug Control Policy violated the publicity and propaganda prohibitions by distributing fake television news stories to broadcast stations from 2002 to 2004.
(4) In 2003, the Department of Education violated publicity and propaganda prohibitions by using of taxpayer funds to create fake television news stories promoting the ``No Child Left Behind'' program violated the propaganda prohibition.
(5) An analysis of individual journalists, paid for by the Department of Education in 2003, which ranked reporters on how positive their articles portrayed the Administration and the Republican Party, constituted a gross violation of the law prohibiting propaganda and the use of taxpayer funds for partisan purposes.
(6) The payment of taxpayer funds to journalist Armstrong Williams in 2003 to promote Administration education policies violated the ban on covert propaganda.
(7) The payment of taxpayer funds to journalist Maggie Gallagher in 2002 to promote Administration welfare and family policies violated the ban on covert propaganda.
(8) Payment for and construction of 8 little red schoolhouse facades at the entranceways to the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, DC to boost the image of the ``No Child Left Behind'' program was an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
(9) Messages inserted into Social Security Administration materials in 2004 and 2005 intended to further grassroots lobbying efforts in favor of President Bush's Social Security privatization plan is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.
(10) The Department of Health and Human Services ignored the Government Accountability Office's legal decision of May 19, 2004, and failed to follow the GAO's directive to report its Anti-Deficiency Act violation to Congress and the President, as provided by section 1351 of title 31, United States Code.
(11) Despite numerous violations of the propaganda law, the Department of Justice has not acted to enforce the law or follow the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
(12) In order to protect taxpayer funds, stronger measures must be enacted into law to require actual enforcement of the ban on the use of taxpayer funds for propaganda purposes.

The US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 402), popularly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act

Smith Mundt's most controversial component is contained in Section 501. Section 501 authorized the government to disseminate information about the United States and its policies abroad. However, it also prohibited the dissemination of that same information domestically. According to 501, material produced for foreign production can only be released domestically "for examination only." An act of Congress is required to free a program for domestic release in less than 12 years. USIA's John F. Kennedy: Years of Lightning, Day of Drums (1965) was the first film that Congress approved for domestic release. 1.

The Smith-Mundt ban on domestic propaganda has been broadened over the years by subsequent legislation. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 amended the Smith-Mundt Act to include a ban on disseminating within the United States any "information about the United States, its people, and its policies" prepared for dissemination abroad. The Zorinsky Amendment added a new prohibition: "no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States."

I can't find the wording in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 because the links are going to the annual amendments which deal with the budget appropriations but I assume there is additional wording out lawing propaganda for domestic purposes.



Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills

WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”

If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel said, but “signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto.”

Supreme Court Deletes Line-Item Veto



Report: White House aides used GOP e-mail to skirt law

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mail records are missing for 51 of the 88 White House aides with Republican Party accounts, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported Monday.

The White House says the accounts were set up to keep political work separate from official business, but investigators concluded White House officials used the accounts to conduct official business in a way that circumvented the Watergate-era Presidential Records Act.

The 37 accounts the Republican National Committee did save include nearly 675,000 individual messages -- more than 140,000 of them from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it appears that the RNC has destroyed a large volume of the e-mails of White House officials who used RNC e-mail accounts," the report states.

The committee found 88 officials who held GOP e-mail accounts; the White House had acknowledged 50.

In a deposition given to committee aides, former Rove deputy Susan Ralston listed a series of White House officials who used party accounts daily. But the RNC "has not retained a single e-mail to or from any of these officials," the report states.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:

* Defines and states public ownership of the records.
* Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
* Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.
* Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
* Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents..
* Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that is not even getting into these laws Bush has broken:

Judge: Bush officials broke law by not reporting on warming

The Bush administration has violated a 2004 congressional deadline for presenting the latest scientific research about global warming to lawmakers and the public and must submit its report by next spring, a federal judge ruled today.

Federal officials have "unlawfully withheld action they are required to take,'' preparing a new scientific assessment by November 2004 and a research plan by July 2006, said U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of Oakland. "Congress has imposed clear-cut, unambiguous deadlines for compliance.''

A 1990 federal law requires the government to produce a scientific report every four years on climate change and its effects on the environment, including land, water, air, plant and animal life and human health.

Bush’s NSA Surveillance Program:

The recent disclosure of President Bush’s secret decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens poses at least four central questions: (1) Is the program lawful? (2) Can the government officials who disclosed the program’s existence to reporters at the New York Times be criminally punished for this act? (3) Can the reporters be compelled to disclose the identities of their sources to a federal grand jury? (4) What can we expect from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, private lawsuits, and Vice-President Gore’s call for the appointment of a special counsel?



Much has already been written on the first of these questions. My own view is that the President’s authorization of this program was unlawful and probably unconstitutional.

And, Boumediene v. Bush is being reported as the third time the court ruled Bush violated the law.

 

[Loss Leader]

Great. Now if any of that mattered, we'd really be getting somewhere.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So let's see, LL. which were the things here that didn't matter to you?

A President that flagrantly ignored the separation of powers?
A President who broke so many laws it was obvious he had no respect for them?
A President who perpetrated a full fledged propaganda campaign that provided support for an unnecessary war that he and his cronies benefited from?
A President who appointed a crony to the position of Attorney General then claimed the AG said anything and everything the President wanted was 'legal'?
A President who has had people tortured, held without trial or even access to legal counsel, covered up mistakes rather than letting the people out of prison when it became obvious they were innocent?
A President who has continued to lie claiming he 1)Didn't need FISA Court approval to spy on US citizens, then 2)Claimed there wasn't time to get the FISA Court approvals when in reality he could spy then get the approvals? (IE he's lying about why he can't tell FISA Court judges who he is really spying on.)

 

[Tricky]

What the hell would impeachment do? He only has six months left anyway and can't even get Republicans to support him. And he can't even be sent to jail for being impeached, only disgraced.

He's already disgraced. I'm fine with that.