Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[l0k0]

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

 

[Kaylee]

Any congresscritter can read whatever the hell he wants into the record*. The real question is are these some kind of actual preliminary impeachement documents that have gotten any further than that with respect to any committees?


* They don't even have to read it. They can order a servant loser yokel patronage appointee clerk to read the entire thing for him, or even just insert it "as if read".

Thanks Beerina. I didn't realize that an entry in the Congressional Record could be so irrelevant as to what was actually going on in the various committees and what was scheduled on the calendar by the Speaker.

So I found TBs OP to be really startling. But now that I know...

Well it was still a good move by Kucinich. Good for him.

 

[mrbaracuda]

I'm worried about Tsukasa and remarks like this:

Woot ! Kucinich has still got it!

 

[Wheezebucket]

Ah, Kucinich. He drives Cleveland to bankruptcy and then they send him off to Washington to bankrupt everyone else, too!

I get the whole not liking Bush thing, I'm right there with you, but just because he also dislikes Bush doesn't make him a great politician.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny thing is, not one 'news' source (on television) has even mentioned this.

I am sure every damn talking head knows what Dennis did last night, but they sure
wont talk about it.

News?

Olberman did, and actually had a Constitutional Law professor on to discuss it. The opinion, no question there were a number of impeachable offenses in the mix. And the sad fact is according to the law prof., that Congress is duplicitous in letting Bush get away with these abuses of power. They are more worried about the next election than they are about the very important Constitutional principles involved. The Dems, included Obama BTW, care more about their likely gain of both the White House and the Congress so they are afraid to take a chance.

I find that rather frightening considering it could set a really bad precedent. And if Bush does any serious damage in the next few months what will that say then?

It is also extremely disturbing that the news media and much of the public I assume are not outraged by the things Bush has done.

Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is.

Here's a link to the Olbermann piece.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed, the burden of proof required for a finding of guilty would be difficult to achieve. . ...
DR

Actually, I don't believe that is true. The second thing you posted is what is true. The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

 

[Darth Rotor]

The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Perhaps you are right, except for the word proof. The law prof, according to you, points to "evidence." There is evidence in support of some complaints and charges, sure, but a great deal of what is objected to is interpretation, and loophole diving. The entire Gitmo deal hinges upon two differing legal viewpoints of what is or is not within the letter of the law.

Look at the case of Scooter Libby, who was found guilty, though of a cover up. There is no reason to think that where these is smoke there isn't fire, so perhaps that is what the professor is alluding to.

When it comes to substantive breaking of regs or rules, we find Armitage admitted screwing up in the Plame case, a while after the fact, and was basically left alone. Curious, given the amount of sound and fury over the Plame/Wilson case.

The whole thing is swimming in politics.

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

Depends on what you are looking for, but let's go back to the original point Dennis is pursuing: impeachment. It is an inherently political process, infested with all that politics brings with it. The impeachment proceedings versus William Jefferson Clinton amply demonstrated that.

Let us suppose that the law professor is correct. There is evidence in surplus of all sorts of illegality, high crimes, misdemeanors, skullduggery, coverups, and so on.

Why did the Cheney impeachment initiative go nowhere? If the evidence is there, why the inaction in Congress?

My point on the burden of proof has to do with a powerful enough batch of evidence that eight Senators cross the aisle ,and vote against the President. Remember, politics. I'd not mix a courtroom setting with a proceeding in Congress. I don't hold lawyers and judges in such low regard.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Kucinich is not a flake, he is a man of principle. Kucinich is the man McCain pretends he is.

Funny that you chose to compare a Democrat to a Republican...



I mean, you could have said the same thing with Clinton... Oh right.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Law written by congress does not trump the Constitution. The President takes an oath stating that he will support the Constitution, as such he is required to disregard unconstitutional laws written by congress. This is part of what is meant by checks and balances.

That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's actually the precise opposite of checks of balances. An executive body which can at will ignore the hieghest legislative body in the nation cannot possibly be described as restrained.

Which is why the checks and balances model includes the third party, the Supreme Court, as the honest broker when the other two branches get into a dispute over the Constitutionality of one thing or another.

It is also why impeachment is a venue for removing criminal and illegal activity in the executive branch.

Think for a moment here, Jerome is on the right track. Congress puts a law together. President vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto. Executive refuses to execute. What next? Charges. Into court. The court rules. One of the two sides is deemed to be correct, or more Constitutionally correct. It is not correct to assume that the legislative branch is by default and position correct. It could be ruled either way, depending upon the case.

What the executive would be doing in that case is challenging the legislative body: oh, you say it's Constitutional? Well, I'm calling your bluff, off to court we go.

Checks and balances in action.

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. He also makes a lot of other claims, such as stealing natural resources from Iraq, which he bases on a hydrocarbon law . Other things, such as entering the war with Iraq made the list as well. Again, even if you don't agree with it, Congress did vote to use force in Iraq so technically the invasion was not illegal, despite the absence of a declaration. And so on and so forth...

Yeah, I skimmed through it and I don't think most of them are impeachable.

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that?

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

That one is really contrived.

First of all I don't think the 9/11 attacks were conflated. How can you measure how an event is being conflated beyond its scope anyway?

Also, I don't think they've ever said that Saddam was behind 9/11, but put him in the context of possible attacks of the same nature, which is not far fetched.

Some of them are just bizarre:

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

?

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues

I guess the twoofers got to him. Why doesn't he blame AQ for this one, aren't they the ones who made the buildings come down in the first place?

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's a link for all 35 articles and details about each one.
Link

Some of these are quite a stretch. For example,
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Patriot Act made this legal whether you like it or not.

If it happened before the Patriot Act was passed, then it doesn't matter.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Creating propaganda, is that impeachable? Doesn't every government on the planet do that?

But it's secret! So secret!

 

[Pardalis]

But it's secret! So secret!

Like a secret hand shake?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

Congress is complicit in that, since they fund defense appropriations that get such things as body armor. So, Congress would have to show that it appropriated and approved body armor in X budget and X supplemental, and DoD blithely ignored that appropriation.

Dennis ought not to shoot himself in the foot like that.

DR

 

[mrbaracuda]

Like a secret hand shake?

Funny you mention this! How dare you expose us! Next thing you know you got a horde of Pardalis with bullhorns yelling at cars making the elitist mad!

 

[Cicero]

Actually, I don't believe that is true. The second thing you posted is what is true. The proof is there, everyone seems to even know it, but the political will is what is not there.

Listen to the law professor, Jonathan Turley on Olbermann on the above link to hear what crimes Bush clearly has committed. According to Turley, you can't walk around the Capital without "tripping on the evidence".

I'm sure you were in agreement with all the legal reasons Professor Turley cited when he testified as a constitutional scholar in favor of the Clinton impeachment. What would your idol Hillary say?

 

[davefoc]

Darth Rotor said it above, but just to repeat impeachment is a political process. There is barely anything objective about it.

Its only practical purpose is to provide a mechanism for removing a president that is so obviously a problem that his own party will move to remove him. That was the case with Nixon after the tapes became available but Nixon would never have been removed from office without this extraordinary event.

I think Bush is the worst president of my life and I think that some of his actions should be impeachable. None the less if I was a Democrat I would vote against impeachment. Until a reasonable contingent of Republicans get on board there is no chance that Bush would be removed from office as the result of an impeachment and it is not clear that the swing voters are going to be all that enthused about an impeachment that is purely a political show, especially at this point in the Bush presidency.

I'm happy that Kuchich did his thing here, but as a practical matter it is not going very far because there just aren't going to be many other Democrats with him on this when the political consequences are so uncertain.

The more interesting question to me is whether I would vote for impeachment if I was a Republican congressman with views similar to mine on this. Doing so would likely alienate me from my party permanently. I would have difficulty getting bills passed and the chances of getting party support for pork for my district would be zero. On the other hand the corrupt and inept Bush administration has savaged the Republican Party and by not taking a stand against it the Republican Party has doomed itself to minority status, probably for at least the next ten years or so.

So what to do? I might try to figure out what was in the best interest of my country and just take that path with the consequences be damned. But if I was the sort of fellow who would do something like that I probably never would have gotten the party support to get elected in the first place.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

The more interesting question to me is whether I would vote for impeachment if I was a Republican congressman with views similar to mine on this. Doing so would likely alienate me from my party permanently.

As usual, Davefoc, a very well worded message.

Maybe the best thing Republican legislators can do for themselves right now is to repudiate some components of the Party of Jesus as it currently exists.

I think we may see a dramatic reshuffling in the Republican Party over the next few years. It is conceivable, to me at least, that this election will be more catastrophic for them than 2006 was. I think they may need to completely reinvent themselves in order to go forward.

The first thing they should do is renounce neocons and dominionists, two influences that have virtually brought them to ruin, along with hundreds of thousands of corpses.

While I might be tickled if they also divorced all of the Fundamentalist wing of their party, that is unrealistic. The Republican Party has become synonymous with Fundamentalist Christianity IMHO, and while it seemed like a great marriage in 1992, Fundamentalism is not doing so well with young people today.

If the Republican Party were to morph themselves into the original type of conservative that tries to conserve things instead of blowing everything up, and if they are able to see that being green is consistent with being conservative, I think their future prospects might improve.

Note that a great deal of wishful thinking was used in the construction of this message.