Posted on 10/19/2006 4:05:55 AM PDT by flynmudd
A plan is in place to censure and impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Orchestrated and organized by the radical Left and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., this plan is ready to go should the Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in November.
The plan is the ultimate manifestation of left-wing hatred for George W. Bush rooted in the contentious election of 2000. Since failing to defeat Bush in 2004, the Left has focused its efforts on destroying his presidency by assembling a list of charges aimed at impeaching him.
Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.
Around the same time, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, told a gathering of 100 Democrats that, should they capture the House in 2006, there would be a “solid case” for impeachment based on President Bush's “misleading” the American public over prewar intelligence. Kerry was picking up where another prominent Democrat had, on November 1, 2005, left off. On that day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a rare closed Senate session with other Democrats to look into the “misinformation and disinformation” used by the Bush administration to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Boxer and Kerry weren't the only prominent Democrats discussing the possibility of impeachment during 2005. Such matters were also being discussed by Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, who, along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and left-leaning Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, called for both Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee investigations into the NSA wiretaps. And on December 20, 2005, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, underscored those calls, saying:
I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses.
More recently, Rep. Brad Miller, D-GA, said, “The Democrats on the House Science Committee are collecting stories of the intimidation or censoring of scientists. We’re building a case for hearings by the Committee, which may be unrealistic to expect under the current majority, or to be ready for hearings next year if Democrats gain the majority in November.” [Emphasis added.] Miller was making that threat in relation to accusations by leftists and Democrats that Bush was silencing those concerned about global warming.
And then there are the constant calls by congressional Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, to investigate the treatment of terrorist prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay and other locations. But most telling of all was Senator Harry Reid's November 2005 attempt to begin the “Phase II“ investigation into the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Reid said Congress must subpoena administration officials and documents in order to determine how Bush built his case for war.
To some observers, the Democrats' endless calls for investigations might appear to be simply a dead-end continuation of the 2000 election – heavy on anti-Bush vitriol and posturing, light on concrete action. And such observers might have been right, if not for the fact that a bill, H.R.635, aimed at investigating articles of impeachment, was submitted to Congress on Dec.18, 2005. The submission of that bill by John Conyers Jr. was, first and foremost, a legislative victory for the radical Left and its sugar daddy, Shadow Party leader George Soros, who for all practical purposes guides the anti-U.S., terrorist-sympathizing agendas of the Democratic Party by funding groups that push far-Left candidates and threaten the careers of existing Democratic Party members who do not tow the radical Left line.
Conyers's H.R. 635 involves creating “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”
Justifying the submittal of that bill, Conyers said, “There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power.” And he was right, for since the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, radical left-wing groups had been calling for Bush’s impeachment– and organizing petition drives to pressure legislators to that end.
The committed activists Conyers spoke of include:
International ANSWER; its founder, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who has advised Conyers on impeachment issues); Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Barbara Olshansky, who advises Conyers on impeachment related issues and wrote a book on impeaching Bush that has served as a template for H.R.635; the National Lawyers Guild; Veterans for Peace; Workers World Party; and most of the 911 'truth' movement.
But the most committed and influential of those pro-impeachment groups, and the ones that gathered most of the signatures that Conyers uses as his justification for H.R.635, are AfterDowningStreet and ImpeachPAC. Both are directed by a rising star of the radical Left, David Swanson.
David Swanson was failed presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's press secretary. He is also one of the principal organizers of the AfterDowningStreet- CensureBush coalition and the director of MeetWithCindy and KatrinaMarch. A Progressive Democrats of America board member, Swanson also directs Democrats.com and has beaten the pro-impeachment drum for the Huffington Post. His ImpeachPAC website is a high-traffic clearinghouse for the impeach-Bush movement. Its stated purpose is “electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney.”
ImpeachPAC has so far gathered well over 500,000 pro-impeachment signatures. Rep. Conyers cites those signatures, and others, as a major reason for filing H.R. 635 and its related bills: H.R. 636, which calls for censuring President Bush and H.R. 637, a bill calling for the censure of Vice President Cheney. During the time of leftist hysteria over the discredited Downing Street Memo, on June 16, 2005, Conyers delivered those and other impeachment related petitions to the White House gate. He had just finished conducting farcical impeachment ''hearings'' in the basement of the Capitol. One of the star ''witnesses'' giving ''testimony'' at those ''hearings'' was Cindy Sheehan. As he was delivering the petitions, Conyers was surrounded by a sympathetic crowd screaming anti-white, racial slurs.
Initially, H.R. 635 had 19 cosponsors, but due to an intense lobbying effort by David Swanson, MoveOn and a host of other radical Left “netroots” groups, that number has swollen to 37. Cosponsors now include prominent legislators Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY; and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL.
The bill's most recent cosponsor is Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-CA, who signed on to the measure on May 3, 2006. But then, less than two weeks later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in an effort to deny the Republicans a potent election issue, announced, should Democrats win the House in 2006, impeachment was “off the table.” Her statement was a warning to fellow Democrats against further cosponsorship of Conyer's bills. Since that warning, cosponsorship of H.R.635 has died out.
Although Pelosi said impeachment was “off the table,” she also said that a Democratic-controlled House would “launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters.” [Emphasis added.] When asked if those “other matters” would be related to impeachment she said, “You never know where it [investigation] leads to.”
Should Democrats gain control of Congress in November, Pelosi's politically expedient, ban on cosponsoring Conyer's bills will be lifted, and Democrats will rush to endorse them. Those bills (concerning “other matters”), will advance through Congress, since 72 congressmen, overwhelmingly Democrats, officially supported two recent lawsuits brought by the Legal Left against Bush: ACLU vs. NSA and CCR vs. Bush. Both suits allege that the Bush Administration broke the law when it ordered warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists and terrorist operatives. Those suits are central to the Left's drive to impeach George W. Bush, since their outcomes will officially determine whether he did in fact break the law in the NSA matter. Currently, both of them are winding their way through the courts.
Some might be tempted to dismiss the impeachment machinations of John Conyers and the radical Left as little more than fruitless protest by a frustrated, impotent minority against an individual and Administration it hates. After all, legislators often file impractical, non-viable legislation in order to dramatize an issue. But in light of five years' worth of endless calls by influential Democratic Party politicians and a few left-leaning Republicans to investigate the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Islamist Terror, H.R. 635-637 must be considered as legislation with a future.
Then there is a detailed impeachment blueprint designed by the Legal Left, and prepared at the direction of John Conyers Jr. called “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.”
The Constitution in Crisis (CIC) is a 354-page text detailing charge after charge against the Bush Administration. Those charges are divided into two general categories: crimes committed during the planning of the Iraq War and during its prosecution, and crimes involving the Bush administration's use of anti-terror surveillance programs since it began. In summary, the CIC claims that the entire Iraq War undertaking has been a criminal enterprise based on Bush's desire to avenge Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on his father and to fulfill the desires of “neocons.” In other words, Bush and a predominately Jewish cabal committed crimes by misleading Congress and the American people into war. And during that war they illegally spied on and tortured people.
The Constitution in Crisis states that Bush broke numerous U.S. laws. John Conyers and the Center for Constitutional Rights have drawn up a list of laws allegedly violated by the Bush administration that are contained within the Constitution in Crisis's pages. They include:
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371) Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001) War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15) Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702) Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121) Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505) Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302) The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211) Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513) Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A) The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)
All of these are serious charges. Unfounded they may be, but John Conyers would become head of the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats win in November. And then, not only would he be in position to order investigations of the charges, he would be obligated by his Congressional oath to do just that.
What would the financial cost of such investigations be? In the 1990s, President Clinton was accused of perjury. That charge and the others surrounding it were far less complex than those currently leveled by the Left at Bush and his administration. The investigations of Clinton disrupted the business of Congress, became the focus of the country, and cost American taxpayers at least $80 million. Investigating all of the complex charges leveled by Conyers and the Democrats would grind Congress to a halt – in the middle of a war – and would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
An intriguing question arises: If Democrats won control of Congress in November, why would they expend enormous political and financial capital on pursuing articles of impeachment against a lame duck President?
Some have speculated that such actions would be political payback for the Clinton impeachment. Others speculate that the Left's extreme hatred of Bush is reason enough for it to pursue his destruction through impeachment or censure. Though both rationales are plausible, either separately or in conjunction with each other, there is a more important, and therefore more likely, reason for the Democratic Party (should it win Congress) to initiate endless investigations of Bush – its obsession to abandon Iraq and end the War on Islamist Terror.
Facing the serious possibility of a pro-war Republican winning the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic Party has a narrowing window of opportunity to end the Iraq War and realize its Vietnam Dream. The best way to make that dream come true would be to level and investigate charge after charge against the Bush Administration, destroying its legitimacy to have initiated the Iraq War and to have conducted it.
Naturally, an avalanche of anti-Bush, antiwar press would accompany such investigations. Opposition to a war perceived as having been unjustly waged, would skyrocket. The public's call for an end to the war would justify its de-funding in the eyes of Congress.
The ploy of leveling serious, unfounded charges against one's political opponents has served the Democratic Party well in the past. It is the ideal one to effect a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-NY, who will head the powerful House Ways and Means Committee upon a Democratic Party victory in November, has hinted that de-funding the Iraq war will be both his and the Democratic Party's priority. To Rangel, de-funding the war is a moral imperative. “[The Iraq war] is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country…This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed,” he has said.
To carry out an impeachment of President Bush, the Democrats need to capture both the House and the Senate. But to cause serious disruptions of the body politic during our nation's time of war, they only need to win the House. With John Conyers, Jr. heading the House Judiciary Committee, Charles B. Rangel heading the House Ways and Means Committee, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and other far-Left Congressmen in control of important House committee chairs, endless investigations of the Bush administration in order to end the Iraq War will almost certainly commence.
I vote that the label Conservative be limited to those who can actually form an English thought. Seconds?
If Christian Conservatives continue to vote for politicians who break their vows, then the politicians can, rationally, be confirmed in their cynicism that they can do what they want once voted into office and they can retain their power simply by scaring their base the democrats will be worse.
Liars must be punished rather than rewarded.
Republicans have had the opportuntiy to do just that ofr a LONG time. They haven't. Why would loss of the House embolden them? I think there is a MUCH better chance the Senate would vote Bush guilty as a way to "heal" the country and be rewarded with flattering photos and "political courage" coverage in the WaPo and NY Times
Granted, it takes time. Still, as you said, it was a year and a half, start to finish, with President Clinton. That was zero to sixty. Right now, the American people understand the case. Pres and VP Bush and Cheney, intentionally or negligently, lead the United States into a war under false pretext.
Article II section 4 says that impeachment may take place for Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Misleading a nation into war probably falls somewhere closer to Treason than Bribery, on the karmic scale. Also, the definition of "high crimes" is basically whatever the House of Representatives say it is. Given that we recently impeached a President for perjury, we'll have to conceed that the charge qualifies as an impeachable offense.
You misunderestimate three things. One, the will of the American people for this sort of thing in a time of war.
Again, bombs were falling during Clinton and Nixon. I wouldn't put too much faith in this angle.
I just don't think the electorate is going to tolerate trumped up charges against Bush and Cheney and this will be even more prevalent if we are hit with another terrorist attack (very likely, IMO).
America will be terrorist attack free if impeachment hearings start. That order will come down from the very top levels of al-Qa'ida. Remember, terrorism isn't about killing people for no reason. It's about using fear to effect political change.
The 'Rats may very well try if they gain control of the House, but I predict a fizzle at best. This is especially true with so many of the Congresscritters voting in favor of the war in Iraq and regime change in Iraq as being the official policy of the United States since 1998.
As the distinguished, French looking Senator pointed out, (and I paraphrase) "We were just voting in such a way as to make the threat of force look viable. You know, to aid negotiations. It was the Executive Branch that actually pulled the trigger. We trusted them. They fooled us."
Two, there simply isn't time for them to impeach a sitting POTUS and Vice POTUS and leave time for campaigning for the '08 election.
I fail to see why they can't do both at the same time. Especially in the latter stages, when the case is basically made, and the impeachment process is basically going through scheduled procedural motions.
And three, you assume that the 'Pubbies will just sit by and allow it to happen.... If they fail to take both houses, the impeachment thingy is dead.
To a great extent, this is all hypothetical, until we see who controls what after the elections. But, they only need to control the House to impeach someone. It's the Senate is required for a removal, and they'd have to win pretty big there for that to work.
I think that many Republicans would roll over and go along with an impeachment, but wouldn't really draw the line until it got to the point of actually removing people from office.
You have been trolling the doom and gloom on a variety of threads. The only comfort is knowing that you will disappear on November 8th.
...or a civil war.
I specialise in myssspellens. I guess you area of expertise is point-missing and leaden pedantry
My poor sister and bro in law have been having to hold their noses while voting for Republicans since the left wing extremist have stolen the DNC from their base.
Poor dims.
You also may wish to reserve casting aspersions on someone's intellect when you post things like this:
We might could survive a RAT Senate.
Really? Would it be a result of "that there gubmint" election?
You were right about one thing. I am a little too young to remember the 60s congress. However, you cannot totally blame the congress of the times for the debacles of the 60s and 70s. Partial blame goes to the other half of your generation who were handed everything on a silver platter in the post-WWII years, chose not to stand up for their country, and have brought about the steady decline of American values since.
You were obviously not one of them. We thank you for that. Lest there be any confusion, I will be at the polls on November 7th. I am not among the (bogus, unreliable data) 25% in this poll you seem to have taken as gospel. My partcipation in service to this country and its political process are not in question. I'm not the problem.
My favorite part of it is the fact we'll have Iran boxed in when it's time to deal with them. Everyone (on the Left) gasped when he named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil. I really doubt anyone can dispute it, now.
Get every Democrat, including Chaffee, Snowe, Collins and Hagel to answer. Get them on record. Make it clear to the American people that they would be voting to send the country into turmoil. 33% of the country would be delighted and 67% would be disgusted at the prospect.
The very minute the demoCommieRATS pull this move....WAR WILL ENSUE!!!! It will be Americans Vs. Anti-Americans!!!!
True Bloodbath Time!!!!
Though I am a W supporter, I would rather see him impeached than see this scenario acted out. I wouldn't follow any president in the process of turning the US into a third-world hellhole. Generations of us have sweated and bled far to much for our Constitution to trash it now.
If you live to see GWB impeached, you won't have to worry about the Constitution because the 'Rats will have nullified everything within it.
I understand that it isn't easy to wrap your mind around the idea that the Democratic Party is no longer a political party, but in fact is a subversive organization no different than the CPUSA, indeed - the policies of the 'Rats are in many ways indistinguishable from those of the Communists.
The Party of FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson and Humphrey has been subverted, hijacked and transformed into the Party of Lenin and Stalin. And that is not hyperbole.
Sure it is. The Party of FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson and Humphrey has been subverted, hijacked and transformed into the Party of Clinton and Pelosi. Comparing the feeble, craven pack of hustlers at the DNC to the great tyrants of the 20th century is nothing more than hyperventilating nonsense.
Oh brother.
Since when did "voting" and "impeachment" become the same thing?
Oh no, I'm with you on that point. I simply disagree that impeachment proceedings initiated by these snakes in the grass would be sufficient justification for a declaration of martial law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.