A simple queston for the impeachment advocates ...

[Pepperbelly]

What charge do you want to see leveled against Bush. The Consitution sets the standard as "high crimes and misdemeanors" although the gops certainly strained that phrase when they went after Bill Clinton.

It has to be a specific violation of law, with the date that it occurred and the evidence that it occurred. It has to meet the elements of the law.

So if you're so hot to impeach, what exactly is the charge? Now, prove the charge.

How serious are you or are you merely thumping your chest?

[Missy M]

1. I would rather see Bush forced to resign!

[Warpy]

28. Not a chance

Just like there is no chance for an impeachment to stick while Congress is weighed down with neocons, religious wack jobs and DLC Democrats. The only thing that would happen would be a few half hearted discussions, a quick vote, and the impeachment process would be over, with no hope of reviving it in a new Congress in 2007.

[Missy M]

37. Unfortunately I think you are aboslutely right that neither...

one will ever happen.

[loveable liberal]

2. Isnt lying to Congress a crime? The case could be made.

He's in a box. If he knew, he lied, if he didnt know, then who is running the government?

[Pepperbelly]

3. which statute?

Date, elements of the crime, evidence?

[SRSU]

6. It's called Perjury when you lie to congress

You sure have an agenda Pepperbelly. Bushcos impeachable actions are NOT defendable. Nice try though.

[Pepperbelly]

8. LOL

:rofl:

[SRSU]

11. Got anything reasoned to say?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loveable liberal]

20. If you can impeach for felacio, you can impeach for lying... n/t

[stevedeshazer]

21. Okay, I'm not a newbie.

What is your point?

[Pepperbelly]

30. are you joining ...

in the freeper implications? If you are not a newbie, then perhaps you should think over your response.

[stevedeshazer]

40. Seriously, are you joking?

I'm not.

[Pepperbelly]

43. are you

making freeper allegations like your buddy there? Is that what you're doing?

That is what he did upthread.

[stevedeshazer]

49. By the way, I really resent your implication that I am a freeper.

Let's stop playing twenty questions, here, asshole.

What is your point?

You know damn well I'm not a newbie, so cut that shit out, jerk.

[Pepperbelly]

53. I don't play games and I

think you need to read upthread from where you inserted yourself without knowing what was going on.

I won't call names like you because I understand the rules here but internet namecaliing is a cowardly, dishonorable thing to do.

[stevedeshazer]

58. You mean names like "freeper"?

Look in the mirror

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

73. Ohferchrist'ssakepeople!

He said you had an "agenda", he never called you a freeper, just suggested that you might be trying to shoot down impeachment hopes.

Pepperbelly - you are the one you cast the first actual insult.

The rest of you- Pepperbelly is not neccesarily saying he can't be impeached or tried, he's just looking for more substance which is what a good denizen of reality does.

So get over it.

[Pepperbelly]

74. you, too ...

apparently haven't been here long enough to be sensative to the freeper invasions and people making that reference. I saw from your profile that you haven't.

That is not something implied lightly here. Why the fuck would I have an agenda. I am just tired of the substanceless chest thumping and if either your or this newbie do not like it, tough.

[The Doctor.]

79. My sensitivities are irrelevant...

More light, less heat.

He is new, and perhaps didn't realize that saying 'you have an agenda' is secret code for 'freeper'.

All you had to do was say - "No, no agenda - I just want to see some substance."

But you did, in fact, jump to the attack.

Do you really want answers, or are you just trying to be as indignant as possible?

More light, less heat.

[Pepperbelly]

86. not everybody ...

is as mannered as you.

[SRSU]

34. Let's see

According to you

1. Bushco has not committed a specific crime worthy of impeachment.

2. While clinton can be impeached for no crime, bushco must have committed a "specific" crime. (nice double standard)

3. When you're told lying to congress for the purposes of starting a war (which has resulted in thousands of dead US soldiers and civlians) is a crime you laugh about it and think it's funny. Based on your above post you're rolling on the floor laughing about it.

Yes, clearly no agenda exists.

Sorry - but being "new" doesn't decide whether or not someone can see an agenda.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loveable liberal]

45. I think someone needs a time out... n/t

[Pepperbelly]

50. why are you saying ...

that I am a freeper?

Are you aware that is against the rules?

What you didn't?

Well, that is exactly the same sort of leap to conclusion that my new friend indulged in. I think that person should be a little more careful in their words and not make untrue accusations about people, particularly people that have been here since the very fucking beginning.

[SRSU]

52. Sure

"Point to me saying a single one of those things"

3. See your response to Post 6. When you're told lying to congress is a crime your ONLY response to that is "ROFL".

1. Your post in which you used the word "specific" has been edited. How nice. Regardless, you still ask for specifics in that post.

2. You maintain various "specifics" are required for impeachment. Clinton was impeached with out such "specifics". Therefore your demand is baseless.

"Read the fucking words. Do not EVER try to put words in my mouth"

Have an anger problem?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SRSU]

60. I can't point you to at least one of them

because it's been edited away. Regardless, it's pretty clear even from your OP you maintain bush has not committed an impeachable crime.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SRSU]

66. I'm here

because you wanted to know what specific law bush violted making him worthy of impeachment.

I said bribery and lying to congress are crimes worthy of impeachment. In response to one of those crimes (lying to congress) your reaction was "ROFL". Therefore I can only assume you think lying to congress to start a war is funny. Therefore I question your agenda.

[Pepperbelly]

68. go back to OP and

take another bite at the apple then.

Statute. Elements of the law. Evidence. Dates.

Real charges. Not bullshit phrases.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. There is no such requirement and you know it.

You can stop now. You made a mistake. There is no requirement that the impeachment consist of specific statute violations.

[Pepperbelly]

85. see below ...

of course ... you sound so indignant.

[SRSU]

78. Haha "bullshit phrases"

You're quite the character.

You're right. Lying to congress and starting a war which has resulted in thousands of dead US soldiers and civilians isn't a "real charge". It's just a "bullshit phrase".

I'm done with you. I can see the agenda, and anyone else with out rose glasses reading this can as well. I should have not said anything and left it for all to view it's so obvious.

[Pepperbelly]

84. you just don't understand anything ...

do you?

You really don't get it.

Whatever.

[Dr.Phool]

13. I'm no attorney

But, I do know it's a crime to lie to Congress. He has violated the seperation of powers by refusing to give Congress documents they are constitutionally mandated to receive. He fabricated evidence for a war. This is a violation of law and several treaties.

There's evidence he DESERTED his military post in a time of war. No statute of limitations.

I could probably type for days.

[Pepperbelly]

19. it is perjury ...

when one is under oath and the lie is material to the matter at hand.

Does it meet those criteria?

[SRSU]

63. When you submit a signed letter to congress

testifying to FACTS you are doing so under oath by law. Bush wrote to congress swearing that iraq was a threat. He also told them so. It was all BULL SHIT and the memo proves he KNEW it was.

[femme.democratique]

16. Here.

Interesting that the specific law that may bring Bush down was legislated as a precurson to the Clinton impeachment...odd, dontcha think?


<snip>

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5

[Warren Stupidity]

77. there is no requirement for specific statue violations. EOM

[SRSU]

4. Bribery

The constitution specifically lists bribery as an impeachable offense.

It is a proven FACT that bushco has paid off reporters to write good things about bushco and its agenda. If that's not bribery I don't know what is.

[Pepperbelly]

5. I think it also mentions treason ...

:D

Now THAT could be interesting.

[SRSU]

9. It also DEFINES treason

Under the definition of treason bush has not committed it. However, he has committed plenty of other impeachable offenses.

[smoogatz]

7. The day after the invasion of Iraq began

Bush wrote a letter to the congress--he was required to do so by law--declaring that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. The link's floating around somewhere, in connection w/ Conyers and the Downing Street memo. If Bush knowingly lied in that letter--and Downing Street indicates that he did--then he lied to Congress, in writing, by falsely certifying that Iraq was an imminent threat. That, according to Conyers, is a violation of Federal law, and an (extremely) impeachable offense.

[smoogatz]

26. Pepperbelly?

Hellooo...?

[Pepperbelly]

33. what?

I am asking.

Tiring of chest thumping and interested in knowing if there is a there there.

WPR violation is an interesting tact.

[smoogatz]

47. There's plenty of there there.

I'll try to find that link. If Downing is true (and its substance has been confirmed by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, among others), then Bush knowingly lied to Congress repeatedly. After the Republicans drastically lowered the impeachment standard in the Clinton fiasco, how can they NOT impeach Bush?

[SRSU]

57. And that's the real question smoogatz

There is now 100% solid proof he lied to congress. Ignoring pepper's claim to the contrary, that IS a crime. His lie has resulted in thousands and thousands of deaths. He's impeachment worthy. No doubt about it.

If the repubs didn't control the house he'd be on trial in the senate today.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. why?

You said:

It has to be a specific violation of law, with the date that it occurred and the evidence that it occurred. It has to meet the elements of the law.


and I'm wondering why you think that is true? The constitution says 'high crimes and misdemeanors' without explaining what that is. I think perhaps you have added the "a specific violation of law" requirement where none exists.

I think that the charge ought to be deliberate fraud and deception intended to mislead the american people, the congress, and international organizations with which we have legal treaty obligations as to the necessity for engaging in an act of war against the nation of Iraq. In that tens of thousands of lives have been lost due to this act, treason is not an unreasonable charge.

[Pepperbelly]

12. due process ... it's simple ...

You cannot try someone without specifics.

Period.

[SRSU]

18. Dear god

There ARE specific crimes he has committed. Why are you defending these criminals?

Are you seriously saying there is no "specific" crime bushco has committed?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. why don't you try to keep it civil? EOM

[Pepperbelly]

46. perhaps ....

when someone implies that I am a freeper, I do not feel any reason to be civil.

Fuck that and fuck anyone who says it about me.

[SRSU]

69. WTF are you talking about?

Where did I say that? I NEVER said that.

YOU are the one who seem to be overly defensive about what you may be, and seem to be way too upset about it.

You demand I quote exactly what you said. I did so (at least what wasn't edited away). Now I want to know where I accused you of anything.

I simply asked what your agenda was in maintaining bushco hasn't committed specific crimes worthy of impeachment. (I think that's a fair question considering any claim that he is not worthy of impeachment for specific crimes is crap.) That's NOT accusing you of being anything. YOU'RE the one who came out of left field being so defensive about something no one brought up.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SRSU]

75. Funny

I almost alerted on the laughing about lying to congress to start a war.

On memorial day I listened to a soldier speak who now no longer has a leg and an arm thanks to the fuckers war. So don't fucking get upset when I get upset about how lying to congress is so fucking funny to you. THAT'S WHY I'm sensitive about it. Don't fucking slap me in the face and claim I'm just overly sensitive because I'm "new".

[Pepperbelly]

81. see ...

you don't know anything about me and make those statements.

I am a vet.

My father was a vet. My grandfather. My greatgranfathers.

And my son is currently serving.

[SRSU]

83. And yet you find it appropriate

to laugh about lying to congress.

That says a lot about your character.

[Pepperbelly]

91. how ...

thick are you?

Clearly, you do not have a clue about the way it works. Just keep up your irrelevant sniping.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. once again

you are inventing rules that do not exist. The constitution is quite vague on the requirements. For good reason. The executive can act in ways that are not strictly illegal and yet are abhorent to democracy. For example, using fraud and deception to manipulate the american people, congress, and international treaty organizations in order to take the nation into an unjust war.

Impeachment of the president exists as the last check on executive authority and I am quite sure, given the history of the time in which the document was written, that the authors were well aware that executive malfeasance need not break specific laws. They certainly could have worded that clause quite differently had their intention been: impeach if and only if specific statutes have been broken.

Impeachment is not a criminal process. It is a political process. "Due process" is applied by carrying out the impeachment and trial procedures as documented in the constitution.

[Pepperbelly]

36. but ...

the rules for the House are quite clear.

Remember, it originates in the House and is tried by the Senate. The rules are set out.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. since they are so clear

it should be no problem for you to post them here, and we should all be able to see the clear requirement that the impeachment charges specify specific violations of statutes.

[Pepperbelly]

59. I don't have that burden ...

I am not advocating impeachment.

I suspect that it is nothing but chest thumping on the part of its advocates. The information posted by salin was cogent. Thusfar, that is mostly the only cogent response yet.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. i call bullshit

post the clear requirements you claimed existed or admit that no such requirements exist. I've googled this and done the research. You've now entered into the realm of deception and diversion.


B. Investigation

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote. 13 Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation would be carried out by a select or special committee. 14

The focus of the impeachment inquiry is to determine whether the person involved has engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. If the House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the individual in question and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, will be reported to the full House


its called google.

[Pepperbelly]

80. there you go ...

http://www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/docs/pdf/himpeach.pdf

In a neat little package.

[SRSU]

82. Wow

A link to some scanned pages possibly written by anyone with absolutely no date on them or footnotes.

[Pepperbelly]

87. whatever ...nt

[The Doctor.]

67. Ha ha ha...

If they could go after Clinton for lying about a blowjob, then this should be a walk in the park.

[SRSU]

14. Yup

The original post is full of it.

They impeached clinton for fooling around. Perhaps pepperbelly can tell us EXACTLY what statue clinton violated? Last time I checked that wasn't a crime where Clinton resided. According to Pepperbelly it must be though.

[smoogatz]

23. Clinton was evasive

about the details of his own sex life while giving a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit in which he was a witness--neither the plaintiff nor the defendant. He was accused of perjury because of that evasive testimony--which did, in fact, depend on what the definition of "is" is. Clinton was acquitted, in case anyone's forgotten.

[SRSU]

27. The accusation of perjury

was baseless. Which is why he was acquitted.

[smoogatz]

38. Actually

He was acquitted because they never really intended to convict him--he was still very popular, and removing him from office would have caused a lot of the electorate to become VERY upset. They just wanted to drag him through the shit as revenge for Nixon. And seize the opportunity to moralize on national TV.

[berni_mccoy]

17. There's no question about it...

The entire administration committed treason. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1828838

[SRSU]

24. No he didn't

Treason is the ONLY crime the founders specifically defined in the constitution (and for good reason). This is straight from the constitution

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

However, he has committed many other crimes.

[berni_mccoy]

39. Define Enemy

[SRSU]

54. Depends on the enemy

Some would say he should be impeached for treason regarding iraq. However, in order to meet the definition you would have to say

1. Iraq was an enemy

and

2. He aided iraq. (which he most certainly has NOT done)

Now you COULD make a case perhaps with the Saudis... but you'd need two witnesses to testify.

[berni_mccoy]

65. There's one more case

By creating false evidence to TAKE the U.S. to War, Bush went to War with the United States (by creating an enemy that wasn't really there). Bush TOOK us to war for NO REASON. Thousands died. There is no difference than actually declaring war on the U.S.

[SRSU]

71. That's a very good argument

And a way to look at in the light of treason I had not considered before.

[berni_mccoy]

88. EVEN BETTER

The A.G. may have just made my case!

Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1828205&mesg_id=1828205&page=

If he thinks Felt committed Treason, then surely, based on my argument, he'd have to conclude Bush (and the rest) did as well (possibly including HIMSELF!!) Ah sweet IRONY.

[Pepperbelly]

70. the neocons are the enemy ...

doesn't have to be external under that definition.

[Nite Owl]

22. Treason

NOUN:

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

A betrayal of trust or confidence.


An illicit war, lying to the citizens is that not treason?

[SRSU]

44. Unfortunately

the only definition of treason that has basis in law in the united states is the definition found in the constitution.

Under a dictionary definition he is guilty, however under the constitutions probably not. Though I suppose it depends on how you argue it.

Regardless, he has committed various other crimes.

[salin]

29. While I am not an advocate, at this time,

John Dean makes an incredible argument in his book.

In summary - in the IWR there is language that bush would have to come back to congress with hard evidence and get a second vote. However, he instead (if I am getting this right) he came back and used the IWR itself as the justificatin (and all the weak evidence therein). I don't recall the particulars well enough to do it justice - but it was very elegant, simple and compelling.

However, I think it is foolish right now - except in the sense of a public buzz... that is keeping the talk about intentional manipulation of intelligence to lead us to war and related side issue... that the idea/concept penetrates the public psyche. There is a value to that - and each week more news items come out that support that general story. (Today it is Bolton's efforts to oust Bustani and why).

The only point at which it would be worth to seriously support, would be if the public sentiment was one of utter outrage (as was the case with Watergate) - with such valence that politicians, esp GOP politicians got a sense that there own political careers were at risk if they remained aligned with the administration. They all have the "out" that they were lied to and acting in good faith (per the war). If public sentiment were such that GOP opponents of bush won more support (that is, viewed as ethical and upright) and supporters became viewed by many as so aligned as to be a part of the problem (as was the case in 1974, where a huge number of GOP congressmen lost their seats)... then is the time for this to be pursued in a real way.

[Pepperbelly]

32. HIYA, friend salin!!!

Thank you for getting it.

:hi:

And thanx for the Dean cite. He is the cat's p.j.s on this sort of thing.

[salin]

48. Hey there PB!

hugs!

I don't have a copy of the book here - but I may be able to try to find it tomorrow and review and summarize his argument.

Just because there is an argument to be made, however, makes it the right thing to do at this time.

However it is possible, due to the administration's own actions of extreme arrogance and their complete lack of connect to reality regarding the policies that they pursue, that the time will come within the near (next three years) future. In which case, it appears that a case (if not by then many cases) can be made.

Folks don't get one major point. We get rid of bush - we still have this very powerful and manipulative republican machine. It is much better for real damage to various parts of that machine to happen - so that when bush is no longer a factor - the machine, in part due to the rashness and frequent abuse of power of todays gop machine, gets irreparably damaged as well.

For the first time in nearly 20 years, I have a sense that the country has a chance in the next 10 years to really move in a different direction. Not in the sense of Clinton, who at best could slow down the rightwing direction in the post reagan years, but a real shift. But that shift has to, in part, come from a shift 'on the ground' (that is - public sentiment.)

[mtnsnake]

42. Lying and/or collusion in an attempt to mislead us into war

which turned out to be a successful attempt.

The charges are obvious for christs sake. If they're not, then what the hell have we been talking about over and over for the last 3 years about how Bush and Cheney purposely mislead Americans and Congress with their bullshit WMD excuse to invade Iraq?

Bush had NO proof of WMD's, he said they had them, he said we'd find them, and all along he just wanted that for an excuse to invade an innocent country.

That alone is plenty enough to bring up the charges and then a court can decide what to do with it.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Let the lawyers sort that out when the time comes.

For now, let's just start de-legitimizing these criminals.

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

89. Yes!!

Why can't people understand this simple notion? It's not like any of us impeachment advocates expect for an actual conviction or impeachment. We just want a motion brought up to impeach. If it doesn't get any further than the motion, then so be it, but it'll cause some fucking nightmares for Bushco in the process.

[firefox]

90. Ramsey Clark, Boyle, and CounterPunch

Ramsey Clark, a former attorney-general, and Francis Boyle, of law professor fame at the University of Chicago, have had actual articles of impeachment out before the official occupation of Iraq was begun.

This is a link to Google results for "Articles of Impeachment" at CounterPunch.org- http://tinyurl.com/bx7w6 The first result is by Francis Boyle with his Articles of Impeachment of January 17, 2003- http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html

Here is a link for Google results of - Ramsey Clark "Articles of Impeachment" - http://tinyurl.com/9wgla

Here is the BBC link of Secretary-General Annon calling Iraq an illegal war- http://tinyurl.com/5pl2v Impeachment is just a trial and anyone that says illegal wars are not a high crime under the Constitution isn't of sound mind. The reason we do not have impeachment is not because Bu$h is innocent. It is because he is guilty along with most of Congress.

Failure to impeach Bu$h is abandoning the duty of Congress. Not calling for the chimpeachment of Bu$h because we have a Congress serving empire is abandoning the duty of citizenship.

There is a mountain of things to try Bu$h for. Just because Congress has sold out is no reason to be quite about the situation. If anything we need to expand the charges and bring the failure of our fascist, Empire-seeking, freedom-trampling, treasury-robbing Congress into this.

[berni_mccoy]

94. I agree except for one part

Congress was misled by false, manufactured intelligence that came from the Administration. Congress was basing their decision on the intel. The administration was making it up.

[cosmicdot]

92. John Dean suggests U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 371

Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371


"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." - John Dean

http://www.alternet.org/story/16142


other things just fuel the fire


Th secret Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to Congress and the American people about his decision to invade Iraq.


- diverting funds approved by Congress for the war in Afghanistan to preparations for an unapproved war in Iraq

- lying to Congress and the American people about Iraq's WMD's

- failing to comply with the terms of the Congressional Resolution on the Use of Force in Iraq

- launching an illegal War of Aggression against Iraq

- committing war crimes in the conduct of the war against Iraq, including aiding and abetting the torture and murder of prisoners

- conspiring to nullify the Anti-Torture Act

- violating the CIA Protection Act by "outing" Valerie Plame

http://www.democrats.com/impeachment-hearings



"Since Mr. Bush seems to have lied to Congress, then he apparently violated at least two federal statutes. Each violation is a felony, a "High Crime" punishable by impeachment.

"18 USC section 1001 provides that in matters within federal jurisdiction, any person who 'knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both'.

"In matters involving Congress, the statute applies to any 'document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch . . . .'

"The State of the Union address is 'a document required by law . . .to be submitted to the Congress." Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President . . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient'.

"If Mr. Bush lied in his State of the Union address to convince Congress to support him in war, he may have violated 18 USC 1001 several ways. For instance, lying about non-existent uranium purchases would falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact that the purchase never occurred. Lying also obviously violates section 2 of the statute: 'makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation'. Knowing reliance upon the forged documents would violate section 3 of the statute: 'uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry'."

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20040603013257871

U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1001
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001

[Pepperbelly]

93. thanx ...

Good stuff there.

[Moderator]

95. Locking

This thread has been overtaken by flamewars between a handful of participants.