The Coming Impeachment

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | October 19, 2006 | Rocco DiPippo

[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.

[Grut]

There isn't time before 2008 to impeach and remove Bush (assuming the Senate would vote to convict), let alone Bush and Cheney both.

This is just more of the 'The Ogress Pelosi' scare tactic the 'pubbies are using instead of standing for something.

[seasoned traditionalist]

Actually, I welcome this. If the RATs actually attempt to put this into motion, it will assure us of a 'trifecta' win come 2008.

That's the same song R's were singing in 54 and it took them 40 years to regain power.

You may be too young to remember the 60's and 70's, but I lived thru it (SEE MY POST # 20) and everyone should take the time to inform themselves with the results of that time period.

REMEMBER ALL, THE DHIMIS CAN--AND WILL IMHO--CUT OFF FUNDING FOR NOT ONLY THE WAR IN IRAQ, BUT THE ENTIRE WOT.

[Miztiki]

Important ping.

[goldstategop]

They will impeach Bush if they win next month. And try him in the Senate if they take over the reins there. All they care about is getting rid of a President they disagree with.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[edpc]

Freepers have indicated on the poll that fully 25% of them WILL NOT be voting "R?"

Is it really necessary to point out the unscientific nature of that or many of the other poll results reported?

Sure, we have discontent out there. However, I really find it hard to believe the 25% isn't contaminated with 3rd partiers and trolls.

[seasoned traditionalist]

This is just more of the 'The Ogress Pelosi' scare tactic the 'pubbies are using instead of standing for something.

Oh sure, this is all a Rove "plot" to get reluctant Conservatives to the polls.

What kind of Kool Aid have you been drinking? Please don't share with others--one affected mooroon is enough!!!!

[seasoned traditionalist]

Is it really necessary to point out the unscientific nature of that or many of the other poll results reported?

Sure, we have discontent out there. However, I really find it hard to believe the 25% isn't contaminated with 3rd partiers and trolls.

REALLY? There are THAT MANY trolls here?

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Last chance poll: Will you be voting for the long term, ie., to support our commander-in-chief and our troops and their mission, and the tax cuts, and constitutional judges, etc., or are you going to go wobbly and support the cut and run Democrats and set up Hillary and Co. to take charge in '08?

Composite Opinion
Voting straight R	75.2%		2,561
Voting mostly R	13.2%		449
Staying home	5.5%		189
Going wobbly	3.9%		134
Pass	2.1%		73
	99.9%		3,406
Member Opinion
Voting straight R	77.8%		1,322
Voting mostly R	14.5%		247
Staying home	3.5%		59
Pass	2.8%		47
Going wobbly	1.5%		25
	100.1%		1,700
Non-Member Opinion
Voting straight R	72.6%		1,239
Voting mostly R	11.8%		202
Staying home	7.6%		130
Going wobbly	6.4%		109
Pass	1.5%		26
	99.9%		1,706

[ More Opinion Polls · Return to Forum ]

[Steel Wolf]

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.

This won't happen, of course. The Democrats are obsessed with Iraq, but they're not stupid about the GWOT. They'll present America with the old bait and switch. "We want to impeach President Bush for leading us into Iraq, when he should have finished the job with Bin Laden in Afghanistan."

If they do remove him, they'll do their utmost to keep a good face on the GWOT for at least the next 2 years, until the 2008 elections. That way, they'll be able to play the anti-war and pro-war angle at the same time. "We're all for catching terrorists, but Iraq was a distraction and a disaster".

That line will be very attractive to many, if not most, Americans.

[taildragger]

REMEMBER ALL, THE DHIMIS CAN--AND WILL IMHO--CUT OFF FUNDING FOR NOT ONLY THE WAR IN IRAQ, BUT THE ENTIRE WOT.

Seasoned,

Sounds like what happened in the wake of Nixon's resignation and the "reformer" democrats that came in and cut funding on Gerald Ford if my History is correct.

These darn fools set the stage for Pol Pot and his genocide. They never notice the cause and effect, and the fact that they may have caused it, (including old Uncle Walter Cronkite).

Let us hope History DOES NOT repeat itself.

[rdb3]

REALLY? Then why is that right here, in the heart of "Conservative Country," Freepers have indicated on the poll that fully 25% of them WILL NOT be voting "R?"

And they probably won't. Regardless, you're likely to hear/read anything around here.

[SlowBoat407]

All they care about is getting rid of a President they disagree with.

It's far worse than simple disagreement. President Bush and the Republicans, even at their worst, are in the way of the liberal Democrats who believe that wealth is not created, but only redistributed. He is in the way of those who believe that the United States bears a permanent stain for every mistake and misstep ever taken and should be made to pay dearly for it. He is in the way of those who want to cannibalize the wealthy and productive for the sake of the poor. He is in the way of those who want to impose their own view of society on those of us who have no desire to host their parasitic policies. They do not merely dislike him. Their vitriol is far more concentrated than that. It is dispensed at a level reserved for those they consider a serious threat, and if they get a foothold, they will not only try to bring down Bush, but the entire country as we know it, and replace it with yet another social experiment.

[goldstategop]

The Left wants to criminalize conservatism.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Steel Wolf]

REMEMBER ALL, THE DHIMIS CAN--AND WILL IMHO--CUT OFF FUNDING FOR NOT ONLY THE WAR IN IRAQ, BUT THE ENTIRE WOT.

No, they won't. Even the ones that would like to are politically savvy enough to know that's a dumb idea. One of the great concerns of the American people, should there be an impeachment, would be it's effect on the GWOT. The Democrats will make the case that Iraq harmed the GWOT, it was a fiasco and a distraction, and for that reason, Pres and VP Bush and Cheney have to go.

That way, it maximizes their chance of getting them impeached, and minimizes the political backlash they might see. You wait. The Democrats will sound like General Patton clones if impeachment starts up. It'll be a sham, sure. In their eyes, pulling out of Iraq would be such a big win for the 'anti-war' side that the 'tough on national security' tag they'd pick up by bolstering Afghanistan would be gravy. There's no way the'd flush such a political advantage, even if some Democrats secretly wanted to.

[mkjessup]

This article provides the beginnings of a convenient list of the traitors within the 'Rat party inclined to launch a political impeachment-attack during a time of war for partisan purposes.

Should the 'Rats gain control (something I doubt) and try this scam, the Department of Homeland Security ramps up the alert status to 'RED' (since the 'Rats will be attacking our government), the President declares martial law and shuts down the Congress for 6 months, the U.S. Marshals pick up the conspirators and their supporters, military tribunals put them on trial, and upon conviction, they get a blindfold and a cigarette, line 'em up against the wall and "Pop Goes The Weasel".

The fact is, political violence is coming to America, and it started with the 'Rats agitating for the actual assassination of George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, and should the 'Rats regain political power in all three branches of government you can bet your ass that they will begin their own pogrom on conservatives (and that means you and me my FRiends), because the only thing more dangerous than a leftist out of power, is a leftist REGAINING power.

So unfortunately, it boils down to a preemptive strike against America's DOMESTIC enemies before they can launch a strike themselves.

And there is precedent. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and declared martial law to preserve the union. Is it an ugly prospect? You bet. Is it going to happen?

Absolutely. The only question is who moves first.

[samtheman]

Well if impeachment is their primary goal if the take the House in November then it'll confirm every worst expectation of the Democrat party, and limit their control to 2 years.

You are so right, Non-Sequitur. If this really does come to pass, the dims will once again overplay their hand, only this time with disastrous results to themselves.

My only fear in all this is not the impeachment itself --- I say: bring it on! --- but that the brain-deads in the WH will continue to hold sway, and that W will continue to restrain himself from naming names and naming crimes (don't just defend yourself, dammit! attack the attackers!).

Presumably, under pressure of impeachment, W will actually use the courage and boldness at home that he's already demonstrated abroad and clearly tell the American people who their true enemies are, for example: the MSM (just one of many).

If handled right, this is an opportunity. If handled in the Rove-esque style of "eat dirt in public and rely on organization at the precinct level", then W very well may go down in a totally undeserved, unwarranted and unnecessary defeat.

[daybreakcoming]

Good morning. I assume you are talking about the poll that is up now where a 7.8% of actual FReepers are signaling they will either stay home or pass on voicing an opinion or going wobbly. I'm sorry - I don't see where you are coming up with 25%.....

[petro45acp]

Hey Claire! Time yet?

[Steel Wolf]

This article provides the beginnings of a convenient list of the traitors within the 'Rat party inclined to launch a political impeachment-attack during a time of war for partisan purposes.

I was just about to reply to another poster with a 'This ain't Vietnam' comment, but I think that Vietnam is a far better analogy than your Civil War one.

If impeachment, or the imminent threat of impeachment, causes a reaction from the White House, it will be much more along the lines of Nixon or Clinton. There's simply no Lincoln angle to be played. Congressmen using power in the Constitution, in in such an absurd way, doesn't constitute an attack on the government. Bombs were flying during Nixon and Clinton's time, and the affect on national security angle wasn't even considered as a possible legal shield.

[seasoned traditionalist]

Sounds like what happened in the wake of Nixon's resignation and the "reformer" democrats that came in and cut funding on Gerald Ford if my History is correct.

That is exactly what happened, and that wuss Ford did not have the cajones to buck Congress and execute his sworn duty (and abide by the Paris Peace Accords which called for us to aid South Vietnam in the event the North tried to overthrow the South) and come to the aid of our (by then "former") ally.

These darn fools set the stage for Pol Pot and his genocide. They never notice the cause and effect, and the fact that they may have caused it, (including old Uncle Walter Cronkite).

Let us not forget the ONE person most responsible for "setting the stage" for the resultant action by Congress--The Rat-Bastard-Traitorous-Lying-POS: Jean Francois "The Snake" Kerie.

We must not forget not only the genocide in Cambodia, but the retaliatory actions by the North agains all those hundred of thousands of South Vietnamese who worked for/with us and had put their faith and "trust" in us and ended up either in "re-education" camps, murdered, or driven to desperation as boat people.

Let us hope History DOES NOT repeat itself.

Unfortunately, History DOES repeat itself due to a lax and indifferent populace which refuses to see the dangers of following the policies which were tried (and failed) from the past. I'm with you and also hope and pray this is NOT one of those instances.

[sgtbono2002]

I think its good that John Conyers keeps his mind busy with impeachment, Its better than having him beating off every minute of the day. His fantasy of reparatione and impeachment are better than sex to this idiot. His constituents who keep bringing him back to the hill have to be political morons.