Campaign Wants Inquiry of Impeachable Offenses

How may Representatives does it take to introduce articles of impeachment? Conyers and maybe Waxman would be a good start. Finally though, somebody isn't scared of the word for once...

www.americanchronicle.com...
Campaign Demands Resolution of Inquiry into Possible Impeachable Offenses

A coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups announced a campaign today to urge that the U.S. Congress launch a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.

John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush.

Bonifaz's memo, made available today at www.AfterDowningStreet.org, begins: "The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

Even if this is true, it is not an impeachable offense. Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The contention is that he misled, or lied to if you prefer, congress and the American people. That is not a high crime, and I don't believe it to be a misdemeanor, either. Bush has never stood before a Grand Jury or some other aspect of our judicial system, taken an oath to tell the truth, and stated what they believe to be lies. They contend he just lied to congress and the American people via press releases and the like. Bush sr. wasn't impeached for raising taxes, despite the now infamous "Read my lips, no new taxes" statement to the American people and congress.

Politicians lie, we all know this, and there is no law against it. If he did lie to the American people and congress, as this group contends, then it is simply a blemish, albeit a big one, and very little character involved in the man, but no law was broken. If he is impeached, it will be along the lines of the Johnson impeachment, not the Clinton impeachment or the impeachemnt that almost was of Nixon.

No, lying isn't illegal without taking an oath, but lying to congress for appropriations is.
I think that is the official bit which will eventually give weight to some kind of action, if there is ever to be anything of substance. Considering Prescott Bush made it all the way to our Legislative Branch doing far worse than lying could give one a hint as to their general immunity to US Codes.

But is it considered a high crime? During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the judiciary committe was told to take everything off the table which wasn't a felony. The misdemeanors part kind of confuses me, because isn't speeding considered one? I'm thinking that's why only felonies were permitted in the Clinton case.

I actually wasn't aware of the lying to congress for appropriations law, though. Is this a felony, do you know?

Prescott Bush? Is this a new name for GW, or are you talking about something I'm totally unaware of?

Prescott Bush was charged under the Trading With the Enemy Act, and had some of his interests seized here in the US, but ten or so years later they called him Distinguished Gentleman on the Floor of the House. The multi-billion dollar accounts of Fritz Thyssen and others were deposited in foriegn accounts liquidated in Germany at the end of the war and laundered through the break up of IG Farben literally over a fifty year period, filtering down to various interests of Bush and affiliates. It's a longer story than I have the time to tell in one post but suffice it to say that the Bush family was involved in some very nasty and indeed treasonous acts during WWII, and never missed a stroke.

Yeah, lying to Congress to appropriate funds is a pretty big no no. Also there are some other impeachable issues that could be raised, I tooled around on google and found hese in the first few searches, look pretty plausible to me. They vary greatly, as to what specificly to raise in articles of impeachment, but some of the opinions I have seen included his ties to Kenneth Lay and charging him under the same laws his Grandfather went down for because of his ties to the Bin Laden Family and other darker dealings.
Just a few examples here from a google...
radio.weblogs.com...
www.counterpunch.org...

As to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" A good source for explinations of legal terminology is as always
google...

//ed to shorten link//

[edit on 28-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

JungleJake: a president does actualy take an oath when entering office.
Dunno if the oath requires him/her to speak the truth. But its worth researching.

John Conyers is willing to bring this forward, but he needs our help folks. The impeachment of the Bush administration is an important step in taking back our government, we need to show them that is is not ok to lie about wars and business dealings. Conyers is sticking his neck out and taking a first step, it's time for involvement if you're serious about your opposition to the neocon agenda.

www.truthout.org...
100,000 Signatures Needed on Downing Street Letter
By Congressman John Conyers
dailyKos.com

Friday 27 May 2005

I have written to you in this space on a number of occasions about my profound concern about the implications of the "Downing Street Memo," which actually consists of the minutes of a July 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. During this meeting, Blair and his advisers reveal details about conversations with their American counterparts. These details cast substantial doubt on the honesty of contemporaneous claims made by the Administration to Congress and to the American people about the Iraq war.

First, the memo appears to directly contradict the Administration's assertions to Congress and the American people that it would exhaust all options before going to war. According to the minutes, in July 2002, the Administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq.

Second, a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere "failure" or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being "fixed" around the decision to go to war.

These are not routine questions within a partisan give and take. Under the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8), the Congress has the sole power to declare war. If the Executive Branch deceives the Congress in this duty, it represents an attack of our democracy of the most serious nature. These Constitutional questions are not going away and must be answered forthrightly and completely by this Administration.

I and 88 of my colleagues (that number is growing - more on that soon) asked the Administration to come clean about these troubling allegations. Our inquiries have been met with silence.

The press has also been negligent in giving this matter the attention it deserves.

I am committed to seeing this through until we get the answers we deserve. But I need your help.

The conventional wisdom, which unfortunately governs Washington's political discourse, hold that the American people have long ago made peace with the mistakes or deceptions which led us into war. Help me prove them all wrong. I want to show the White House, the Press and my congressional colleagues that nothing could be further from the truth.

That is why today I am giving you the opportunity to sign on to a letter asking the same questions of the President that now nearly 100 Members of Congress have asked. If I get at least 100,000 signatures on this, I will personally deliver the letter to the White House.

If you want to sign on to this letter, go to my website.

I also want you to know that I am exploring many, many avenues to get to the truth about this matter.

Thank you in advance for your help and assistance.

www.johnconyers.com...

Sign here...

//removed link for impeachment letter campaign//



[edit on 29-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by junglejake
The contention is that he misled, or lied to if you prefer, congress and the American people.

Lying to the American people, and to the Congress while delivering the State of the Union address IS a crime.

Sorry, but it IS A CRIME TO LIE TO FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS. This is a FACT. And if the 911 Commission aren't Federal Investigators, who are? I will bet that body is not the only Federal Investigators that Bush et al. have lied to, either.

I say a Congressional Hearing is a Federal Investigation, too.

[edit on 6/1/2005 by Noumenon]

It's illegal to knowingly lie (unless you're Bill Clinton). In order to make this stick, you would have to provide incontrovertable evidence that Bush knew, at the time, otherwise, but stated lies knowingly.

However, after the Clinton impeachment, I doubt this would even be enough. It was clearly displayed that Clinton lied under oath and was involved in a conspiracy to cover up those facts to both the legislative and judiciary branches of our government. Yet, most of the senators who were Democrats didn't even look at the evidence -- there is a written record which backs that up. Why would you expect the Republicans to behave any differently in the same circumstances?

I would think that the only way for this to happen is if Bush were formally accused and convicted of breaking international law in regards to the invasion. This would seem to be an open and shut case, but nobody internationally seems to have the balls or influence to do it.

Without this, any attempt at impeachment is doomed from the start.

If it were shown that Bush were in violation of international law, chances are with the way our government is currently set up we would remove ourselves from any ever cursory involvement with international law. Look at the huge conservative outcry with the recent court ruleing which was based on international law as precident, rather than American law.

fabrication of evidence to start a war if that isn't a high crime then wtf is!

Well, Gaz, that explains why 'we' decided to pull out of the International Courts right around the same time we got involved in Bosnia, we are no longer answerable to the international rule of law. The international community is pretty powerless when it comes to even so much as a formal censure of US Foriegn Policy. We 'unsigned' from the international criminal court to create an immunity for our 'peace keeping' forces in Bosnia. Bush delivered the final blow to our international accountability, I wonder why?

Here's a few examples...
US withdraws from world court protocol
www.isn.ethz.ch...

www.worldpolicy.org...
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 9, 2002: "The Unsigned Treaty" — President George W. Bush’s unprecedented decision to abandon the treaty for the International Criminal Court deepens the impression that the United States will only abide by its own rules on the international stage. Ultimately, this is a self-defeating act that undermines U.S. influence in the world and stands in stark contrast to the history of U.S. leadership in prosecuting war crimes....

www.washingtonpost.com...
U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases
Foes of Death Penalty Cite Access to Envoys

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration has decided to pull out of an international agreement that opponents of the death penalty have used to fight the sentences of foreigners on death row in the United States, officials said yesterday.

In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.

I guess the best way to avoid the Noose is to deny it exsists, even if the noose was your idea to begin with. It's hard to hang somebody when they own all the ropes. Impeachment derives as a mandate from Congress, the more important question here is why doesn't somebody step up to the plate here? Plane Crashes and Anthrax Mailings, that's why IMO. Well that and you just don't bite the hand that feeds you.


Edit:

Originally posted by junglejake
If it were shown that Bush were in violation of international law, chances are with the way our government is currently set up we would remove ourselves from any ever cursory involvement with international law. Look at the huge conservative outcry with the recent court ruleing which was based on international law as precident, rather than American law.

Been there done that..

[edit on 1-6-2005 by twitchy]

I say it's about time. I would have supported impeachment months ago. only problem is, do we really want dick cheney as president?

Originally posted by junglejake
It's illegal to knowingly lie (unless you're Bill Clinton). In order to make this stick, you would have to provide incontrovertable evidence that Bush knew, at the time, otherwise, but stated lies knowingly.

He most definitely knew as he delivered that State of the Union address. The British memos recently released prove that.

In all fairness, and I am NO Democrat or fan of Clinton, but we must apply the same standards to all who "serve." It's the only way to maintain credibility.

Regarding Noumenon's comment.. Saying that it was criminal for Bush to lie to 9-11 committee won't fly. HE was expressly NOT under oath. Clinton, on the other hand, was when he testified before that grand jury. So, on that, Clinton DID break the law.

The lengths to which people will go to defend a POTUS of their choice can be extraordinary.

The very finest points of Bush's mendacity are placed under the microscope, and the definition of what constitutes a lie and how and when Bush lied or did not lie becomes more significant than the total ineptitude with which the incumbent administration has conducted itself throughout its short lifespan.

Finally we must settle on one of two options:

1. Bush knowingly lied to instigate a war to support a pre-determined agenda.

2. Bush is an incompetent evaluator of information and surrounds himself with incompetence and instigates foreign incursion and occupation and spends hundreds of billions of dollars on the effort and wastes tens of thousands of lies, without confirming his advice.

Readers with the wisdom to have accumulated their facts will understand fully that the OSP was an office established by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq War as a so-called "war on terror", by selectively collecting and accumulating only such evidence (no matter how spurious or fabricated) as could be used to convince US Congress and allies of the need to eliminate the "imminent threat" posed by the Hussein regime.

The actions of the Bush administration in abusing intelligence services are unprecedented in US history.

As the slogan goes, "Bush lied. Thousands died."

ECK, your assessment of Bush's decisions to never testify under oath (coupled with knowledge of the extraordinary number of Execuutive Orders he has signed to try to absolve his administration of criminal responsibility or culpabibility for his actions) points out what a reall a$$ the law in the US is.

Well, it depends on what the meaning of is is. Is is not was is not will be.

MaskedAvatar, did you hold such lofty standards when Clinton was in office? If you did, that's awesome. If not, though, how can you expect the supporters of this "POTUS"( ) to take your words as anything more than, essensially, "it's ok when my side does it, but not your own"?

LOL that's the third time I have seen Clinton's name on this thread...
Good lord.
Clinton was a BUSH LACKEY.
Here's some more interesting Bush Clinton details...
www.google.com...
Not to mention Reagan was Shot by a BUSH Family Friend. Nancy was right about 'Poppy' Bush.

Do you not understand what a Regime is? It is what happens when a Republic lets the Elite Ruling Class take over the legislatures or Senates. Ancient History, right up to 20th Century America, the only thing which is unprecedented in this case is the fact that we, as a people, have the legal power to actually do something about it, and we're not.
One thing alot of folks don't realize is that a mandate from the people carries the same power as an executive order, or a legislation. It just takes the initiative and the popular support to circulate petitions and referendums. We could Impeach bush, but instead we're going to sit back and see if somebody in Congress will step up to the bat for us. They won't. They are too far in the game boys.