Articles of Impeachment for President George W Bush - Hearing Today (crime, Olbermann)

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Dolphinswink

It's funny how we take things to an extreme sometimes in our reactions when usually, there's a solid middle ground between people who disagree or have differing beliefs amongst each other.

Anyone that wants to find the information, can find it. There's a lot out there. I'd take the time to do it, but why? If I could find it, so can anyone else if they care to. Any links I provide here will likely result in just further discussion on why it is or isn't true or why or it is or it isn't a conspiracy.

It's all relative. I don't believe everything I read either nor do I believe that, for example, Pop. Science or Motor Trends are a lying pile of poop on everything. Extremes.

None of us here are going to agree with one another 100% .. but insulting one another or labeling one another doesn't help when, I would bet, most of us have a common goal - to have a united country and a leader that does not abuse his powers and that we don't take all the BS and lies they tell us, lying down.

The only way our country is going to change, is if we all wake up to the collective belief that our government is NOT serving the best interest of our country. I think most people can agree on at least that? And instead of giving away our power, we stand up and basically, like I said, say we won't take this BS any more.

Bush and Cheney have done nothing but chip away systematically at the Constitution, all on the false pretense that they are protecting us. But who is protecting us from the real terrorists - the government?

If impeachment or charges brought to fruition over their war crimes, treason, etc. is successful, then I say it's about time. But I don't see it happening because the majority of American citizens appear to care more about other things and are fine with letting the government tell them what they can or can not do.

I sense a breaking point is coming though. I may be wrong and it may be wishful thinking, but sooner or later, people are going to get up and say "enough's enough" and hopefully it won't then be too late.

JMHO of course. My truths and my reality are mine, just as everyone else has theirs

You started out so well, then you started heading down that path of your own personal subjective opinion of things stated as if they were a common truth.

Here is what we should be doing concerning matters of government and the like. We should post our supporting information. Then, those who look at that information should honestly and objectively evaluate the supporting evidence pointing out any flaws that are not consistently following proper rules of objective evaluation and debate.

We should point out when someone makes a logical fallacy. We should attempt to find "truth". Not your truth, not my truth, but THE truth.

We should leave our emotions at the door. We should follow principals of scientific analysis. That is, we should not accept what has not be proven, validated, or quantified. We can speculate, but we should point out when we are. we should not conclude on what can not be concluded. We need to apply proper due care and due diligence with the claims we make when they are not issues of simple subjectivity.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

the money is spent. too late to get it back. but its not too late to plug the hole in the dam.
vote in november please. its not what happened that is sobering. we went 8 years with a president with an approval rating of 29%. what's up with that? who is minding the store?

Those are number with what you would like to believe...stick to facts and not the ones you wish to believe.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

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

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.

Article III - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Not illegal. No president has a duty or obligation to tell the truth, unless they're under an oath of perjury. Since Zucchini wasn't able to provide statutes or case law to support his claim, maybe you can.

You might want to consider that by law, a president (and others as well) cannot reveal information that is classified vital to national security. Such information would include plans and strategies related to long term US geo-political strategy (over which a president has no control since geo-strategy is formulated by bureaucrats, not temporary employees like presidents).

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article V - Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Isn't it rather strange that Zucchini did not attempt to impeach Clinton for giving $500 to $800 Million to Iran to ship weapons to Croatia and Bosnia, without congressional approval?

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

The joint resolution was a declaration of war. It seems a lot of people have this fantasy that a declaration of war only exists when Congress stands on its desk-tops, holds hands, and shouts in unison, "I - DO - DE - CLARE - WAR!" and then does somersaults.

The US Constitution only says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does NOT specify the manner in which Congress is required to do that.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

If that would be a violation, then under international and US law, Bush has Functional Immunity and cannot be prosecuted while in office.

In legal parlance, that's called an Absolute Defense, which requires immediate dismissal.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

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

Not a crime. Neither body armor nor vehicle armor are required by statute. If the generals wanted body and vehicle armor, then they would have asked for it.

When they finally did, the Democrats then heaped abuses into the bill by attaching earmarks and amendments to fund pet peeve projects, which resulted in the bill failing about 8 times before it finally passed.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI - Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII - Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIII - Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

None of those are crimes. If they would be crimes, then we must ask why Zucchini did not move to impeach Clinton when Clinton ordered permanent military basis built in Central Asian countries, or when Clinton deployed US troops to Central Asia without a declaration of war, and for reasons of controlling Central Asian resources like oil, natural gas and minerals.

Clinton's actions allowed a conglomerate of UNOCAL, Chevron, Amoco and British Petroleum to buy up 75% of the oil, natural gas and minerals in the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (as it stands the "UNOCAL Conglomerate is no more as Chevron bought UNOCAL and BP bought Amoco).

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XIV - Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Since Bush wasn't involved, that won't stick.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XV - Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Not illegal. What a precedent? Try extra-territoriality on for size. The US (and UK) granted immunity from prosecution for US sailors, marines, and US citizens in China.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XVI - Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Which is why our gallant young Zucchini repeatedly led the call to hold oversight hearings, right? Reckless misspending is not a crime.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XVII - Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Functional Immunity, an Absolute Defense. Charges dismissed.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXVIII - Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.

Article XX - Imprisoning Children
Article XIX - Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to 'Black Sites' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture.

Again, Functional Immunity, an Absolute Defense. Charges dismissed. You can try to prosecute Bush (and others who have Functional Immunity) after they leave office.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXI - Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII - Creating Secret Laws

Nothing illegal there. Again, there is no legal or statutory requirement to reveal classified information.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXIII - Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Not going to fly.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXIV - Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV - Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

That may have been a violation, but the Courts have mostly sided with the government, so they have case law support.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXVI - Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Signing statements are not illegal. Clinton used them. In fact he used them more than 100 times, but the good Zucchini never attempted to impeach Clinton for that.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXVII - Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Certain issues do fall under executive privilege, which is equivalent to attorney/client privilege, and doctor/patient privilege, and the US Supreme Court has already said so.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XVIII - Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX - Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

With Democrats being convicted of voter fraud for the 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections in Democrat counties, with Democrat judges and juries, I don't think the Democrats want to go there.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXX - Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

That's hilarious since the Democrat-controlled Congress doubled the Social Security Tax needlessly, then promptly spent every single penny of the surplus for 17 years.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXXI - Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

If you read the law, the governor must ask FEMA to intervene. When violent rain storms over-flowed sewers in Cleveland, Ohio a few years ago, Governor Bob Taft promptly declared an emergency and invoked FEMA, and the FEMA crew was there 8 hours later handing out checks to home-owners with flooded basements.

See how easy it is?

If the governor of Lousiana, and the mayor of New Orleans had ordered a mandatory evacuation, lives would have been saved.

Except that the National Weather Service predicted landfall 11 miles east of New Orleans, so no mandatory evacuation was ordered.

The NWS was wrong.

It's really Barbara Boxer's fault. She stole Bush's Oiuja board and crystal ball.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXXII - Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

What climate change?

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXIII - Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV - Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Might be a case for malfeasance there.

Originally Posted by GigiBowman

Article XXXV - Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Zucchini is clearly grasping at straws there. I'm sure the fire-fighters and police would have preferred to gladly spend several hours suiting up before attempting to rescue people in the towers.

[BigJon3475]

woops wrong thread (g)

[tinman01]

Mircea makes an excellent point. Most if not all former president Clinton himself committed. That would include purgery.
Not to mention XXIII. Those terrorists one and all came here under Clintons watch, learned to fly and finished preperations to commit the deed.
XXIV- hmmm who was caught stealing papers from the archives and who was his boss again?

[bluskyz]

Certainly there is a case for not allocating money and time to impeach a Pres. with so little time remaining in office. However, the aspect of a "no action" gov't. is something to consider. The likelihood of a similar performance or worse by another Pres. and his cohorts would be greatly enhanced. Many US citizens need the assurance that the Bush modus operandi will not be possible to repeat.

There isn't to my knowledge a statute of limitations on major criminal activity and I think that is what this involves. He can be indicted after leaving office for an indefinite time. The Hague comes to mind.

[Losertarian]

I can agree with number 24, the one about the UN charter? well the UN can suck an egg and get the hell out of the USA in the 1st place.

all the rest are just hogwash and are not felonies nor misdemeanors, and that is what you have to have in order to impeach a president.

if you went on your basis', every president since abe should have been impeached, including the fascist liberal god fdr.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by Losertarian

I can agree with number 24, the one about the UN charter? well the UN can suck an egg and get the hell out of the USA in the 1st place.

all the rest are just hogwash and are not felonies nor misdemeanors, and that is what you have to have in order to impeach a president.

if you went on your basis', every president since abe should have been impeached, including the fascist liberal god fdr.

No doubt.
FDR - Pearl Harbor
FDR - allowed our military to become not second rate but 3rd rate
FDR- Internment camps for japanese american citizens
FDR- Domestic spying without warrents against both Japanese and German american citizens.
And he just cause for #4.

[doubbltunman]

YouTube - Kucinich Testifies Before HJC for Bush Impeachment


Don't know if this was posted before, but I found it most informing.

[GigiBowman]

Originally Posted by doubbltunman

YouTube - Kucinich Testifies Before HJC for Bush Impeachment


Don't know if this was posted before, but I found it most informing.

Thank you Dennis Kuchinich