Impeachment Talk Reaches the Mainstream

[cenacle]

Impeachment Talk Reaches the Mainstream
By William Goodman

Published on March 14, 2006 at Alternet.org
http://www.alternet.org/story/33373/

The groundswell for President Bush's impeachment is growing, and last week the establishment media finally took notice.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story analyzing how a planned impeachment of President Bush will play out as an "election issue," including a helpful pie chart showing 51 percent of Americans support Congress in considering Bush's impeachment if he "didn't tell the truth about the reasons for the Iraq war."

The Washington Post published a commentary acknowledging that support for impeachment is now "reaching beyond the usual suspects," and the Associated Press covered the spike in pro-impeachment resolutions from local officials across the country. Resolutions recently passed in Vermont and California, and this weekend Democratic Party officials in Michigan voted to urge local officials to pass another. Meanwhile, 14 Democratic candidates for Congress have announced their support for impeachment.

These local efforts are beginning to advance impeachment at the national level. The resolution by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., to investigate impeachment is slowly but steadily gaining co-sponsors, including three this month. It now has 29 co-sponsors -- roughly one out of every seven Democrats in the U.S. House -- a promising start that ensures that the legislation attracts more votes when it reaches the floor.

These activist and legislative efforts helped finally push the "i-word" on to the notoriously conservative cable news last week. On Wednesday, Joe Scarborough aired an impeachment debate on MSNBC -- one of the first times the subject has been debated this year on cable. Scarborough's producers invited me to make the case for impeachment after learning of the new book I co-authored, "Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush."

Since impeachment rarely receives any consideration on television, I took the opportunity to explain our case, even if it meant going on Joe Scarborough's turf. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman who opposes impeaching President Bush, said during the show that he was "fascinated" by some arguments for impeachment. He accurately described the groundswell:

    There's a movement out there right now calling for George W. Bush to be impeached. Just take a look at how many cities and towns across America have either drafted resolutions calling for the president's impeachment or are considering doing so. Not only that, but 11 candidates for the House of Representatives and three for the U.S. Senate are all running on the impeachment platform. Why do they want the president gone? Well, here are the common reasons cited. The war in Iraq, which they say Bush lied to get us into; warrantless eavesdropping, authorized by the president; the torturing of prisoners; and the president`s response to Hurricane Katrina.

It is significant that impeachment activists have received Scarborough's attention. When we debated the topic, Scarborough even conceded that the arguments for impeachment in our book were "intellectually honest." That's because it's easy to make an intellectually honest case for impeachment: President Bush has publicly admitted to breaking the law. Here is how I explained the clearest example of the president's multifaceted illegal conduct -- spying on Americans:

    the fact is that the law provides a clear-cut way that the president has to do these things. He has to go to the FISA court. He knowingly violated that law. And the law says -- there are two laws, in fact, that say that when you do that, you are guilty of a crime. There it is. That is one of the high crimes and misdemeanors.

Pat Buchanan was quick to argue that even Senate Democrats weren't supporting impeachment. While many Washington Democrats appear to be spineless these days, a growing number of House Democrats are supporting a resolution to investigate impeachment. This debate is the start of many to come. Impeachment is finally out of the bottle, and it is not going away. C-SPAN plans to televise a discussion of our impeachment book, moderated by Amy Goodman in New York on March 28, and our attorneys are receiving more requests to explain the legal case for impeachment from grassroots groups and reporters.

This week the Senate will also consider censuring President Bush for illegal wiretapping, a rare move that shows even the conservative upper house may be realizing that President Bush is out of control. But we must remember that a censure resolution won't remove a single wiretap from Americans' phones. Congress and the American people must take real action to address President Bush's illegal policies in wiretapping, Iraq, torture and undermining the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

President Bush has repeatedly broken the law and brazenly promised to continue to betray his oath of office and our Constitution -- clear impeachable offenses. We must grow the impeachment movement across the country and in the halls of Congress to catalyze a substantive debate over illegal conduct, not politics.

[William Goodman is the Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.]

[dergheist]

WOW! Finally the nation is waking up.  Took long enough.  I hope that they do get that 8@st@rd!!!! :twisted:  While they are at it, why not try him, his father, and their companions for war crimes?

[senorsalvia]

:twisted: ----   Great great news:  I've been telling anybody who would listen, that the our lil tyrant has legally and for sure committed the same acts as listed in the article, and that point in fact they were impeachable offenses...   Damn!!   Maybe that lil cocksuckers' gonna have to end up paying the price for trampling the constitution and those he so callously rules over.............  sal--------------

[winder]

51% of Americans is not what will drive impeachment; more like 51% of Americans in 51% of the districts will drive impeachment.
Getting 51% or more within the Democratic-controlled districts is easy, but does not get 51% of the districts.

[cenacle]

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping American citizens.

Censuring a sitting president is serious business. But when the president misleads the public and Congress while willfully and repeatedly breaking the law, there must be consequencesâ€"that's how the law works for everybody else.

While most politicians sat back and weighed the political pros and cons of holding the president accountable, Senator Feingold stuck his neck out and did it. Now it's up to us to show broad public support. Can you sign our petition asking Congress to join the call for censure?

http://political.moveon.org/censure?id= ... wPkXtQ&t=2

Right now it's unclear how many of Senator Feingold's colleagues will stand with him in this important fight. If we can reach 250,000 signatures, we'll deliver your comments to your senators this week to demonstrate widespread public support censuring the president for breaking the law. We'll also send a copy of the complete petition to Senator Feingold to show our support for his courage.

President Bush already had the authority to wiretap suspected terroristsâ€"he could even wiretap first and get warrants 3 days later.  But he chose to get no warrants at all, clearly violating the law set up to protect innocent Americans and then he misled the Congress and the public about his program.1

Censuring the president means Congress officially acknowledges that the president broke the law and condemns him for doing it. Given the scale of the president's problem, it's a very reasonable first step to holding him accountable. This is a key moment for Congress to show that they're serious about checks and balances.

Our country was founded on the idea that everyoneâ€"even the presidentâ€" has to follow the law. Supporting censure is the best opportunity we've got to keep that ideal alive. Can you sign our petition today?

http://political.moveon.org/censure?id= ... wPkXtQ&t=3

Thanks for all you do,

â€"Eli, Nita, Tom, Adam, Joan and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

Sources:

1. If you would like more details on the case for censure, please click below.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1535&id=7035- ... wPkXtQ&t=4

P.S. This is a big moment so we're including the beginning of Senator Feingold's speech outlining the case for censure below. You can read the censure resolution here.

    Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

    The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's actions.

    All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President's conduct was wrong.

    And we must do that. The President's actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

    At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

    This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

    To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President's conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President's actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.

    Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.

    As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
    Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution's system of checks and balances:

    "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

    Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president's actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.

To continue reading, please click below:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1536

[cenacle]

I wrote to my senators and representative yesterday: "In poll after poll, the country is telling all of you in DC that we are against wiretapping, against the Iraq War, against the idea of the 'unitary executive,' against what the Bush regime is doing to the country and to the world. You were each elected to represent our interests. You are not doing your jobs by letting the Admininstration's crimes against humanity continue. You are elected  officials and we will remember this November and the following ones how you do or do not put your own interests above that of the population. It's up to you. Do the right thing; back up Senator Feingold."

[Stonehenge]

I've seen virtually nothing about this in the news. What little mention they make is always a put down and the implication that censure or impeachment is only considered by fringe elements. If this was allowed to be discussed by the public, bush would be hanging by a thread right now. As it is, the powers that be do not want to rock the boat. Therefore, the boat is not rocking. I estimate it would take 70% of the public to be in favor of impeachment plus a lot of grass roots organistations before this comes up on the radar screen.

[cenacle]

Bush Approval Falls to 33%, Congress Earns Rare Praise
Dubai Ports Fallout

Released: March 15, 2006

http://people-press.org/reports/display ... portID=271

Summary of Findings

In the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal, President Bush's approval rating has hit a new low and his image for honesty and effectiveness has been damaged. Yet the public uncharacteristically has good things to say about the role that Congress played in this high-profile Washington controversy.

Most Americans (58%) believe Congress acted appropriately in strenuously opposing the deal, while just 24% say lawmakers made too much of the situation. While there is broad support for the way Congress handled the dispute, more Americans think Democratic leaders showed good judgment on the ports issue than say the same about GOP leaders (by 30%-20%).

The new Pew survey underscores the public's alarm over the prospect that an Arab-owned company could have operated U.S. ports. Fully 41% say they paid very close attention to news about the debate, which is unusually high interest for a Washington story and is only slightly lower than the number tracking Iraq war news very closely (43%). There was broad opposition to the proposed deal from across the political spectrum, including two-to-one disapproval among conservative Republicans (56%-27%).

Bush's overall approval measure stands at 33%, the lowest rating of his presidency. Bush's job performance mark is now about the same as the ratings for Democratic and Republican congressional leaders (34% and 32%, respectively), which showed no improvement in spite of public approval of the congressional response to the ports deal.

[cenacle]

Harkin Signs on to Censure Measure
By Erin P. Billings

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/brea ... 561-1.html

Roll Call Staff
Wednesday, March 15

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has become the first co-sponsor to Sen. Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis.) controversial resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing an allegedly illegal domestic surveillance program.

[senorsalvia]

Great to see that the wrecking ball might just be starting to roll from up on 'Da Hill..... I'm excited to see this happening :twisted: ----------- sal

[cenacle]

this is sho' perty:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 364x680013

 :twisted:

[cenacle]

and this one:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

[cenacle]

Poll: Americans slightly favor plan to censure

Published March 16, 2006 at RawStory.com
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_ ... _0316.html

A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.

A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.

Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.

[cenacle]

Leahy, Jeffords support hearings on Feingold censure proposal

Published March 20, 2006 by the Vermont Guardian
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/ ... l#article1

Vermont’s two senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy and Independent Jim Jeffords, believe that hearings should be held on the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program before a censure vote is held.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, has introduced a resolution calling for censure, accusing Pres. George Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Few Democrats have openly come out in support of the measure.

“Sen. Feingold says he intended his resolution to prompt congressional investigations into the president’s actions on these issues. Republican leaders so far have been reluctant to allow that,” said David Carle, a Leahy spokesman. “Sen. Leahy believes in first things first, and the first thing is Congress doing its oversight duty in investigating the Bush administration’s illegal domestic wiretapping.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee, on which both Leahy and Feingold sit, have held two hearings on the domestic surveillance program.

Jeffords “would like to have hearings on the resolution,” said Diane Derby, a spokeswoman.

On Jan. 20, Leahy introduced a resolution that would put the Senate on record refuting Pres. Bush’s assertion that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed before the invasion of Afghanistan, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, Carle added.

“Both the Feingold and Leahy resolutions have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Leahy has been pushing for full congressional investigations and oversight of the issues that both resolutions address,” said Carle.

Feingold’s resolution reads, in part:

“Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required.”

Feingold’s resolution states censure is warranted by Bush’s “failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.”

The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in 1834, for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate. In 1999, Senate Republicans tried but failed to bring a censure resolution against Pres. Bill Clinton after he was acquitted by the Senate on House impeachment charges that he committed perjury and obstructed justice.

Feingold was the lone senator to oppose the 2001 Patriot Act. Two weeks ago, he was joined by Jeffords, Leahy and seven other senators in opposing a renewal of the law with some new curbs on police powers.

[winder]

Damn 2 party system.  With 3 parties, this would already be done by now.