Friday, February 03, 2006

Impeachment update

A few weeks ago I put the "Impeach Bush" banner on this blog. Why? Because impeachment is the remedy provided by the Constitution for unlawful acts by a President. It seems completely clear that the President is asserting a right in his Presidential office to override statutory law in relation to warrantless wiretaps and probably any number of other acts that haven't leaked out yet. And since the problem is the overriding of Constitutional boundaries, the proper appeal is to application of law rather than political containment (though that wouldn't be a bad idea either.)

So though it seems a little crazy, IMPEACH is the word.

Clicking on the banner takes you to the Impeach Bush Coalition, a blog that reports on impeachment developments.

The obvious problem with impeachment is that, to get it going, the House of Representatives has to vote out a set of charges. And we all know what a set of corrupt rightwing non-entities the Republican members are. So that seems unlikely. But it turns out that the legislature of any state may transmit impeachment charges to the House. (That doesn't mean the House will affirm them, but they'd probably have to vote on them.)

And, in the great state of Vermont 104 members of the legislature, a majority, have already called on their Governor to

"assert that all searches and surveillance of American citizens be conducted according to the rule of law, and we ask you to publicly call on the powers that be in Washington to cease such unconstitutional activity in Vermont at once."

There is definite potential in state campaigns to push Congress.

Some unexpected voices have called for impeachment. For example, Thomas Donlan wrote an editorial in Barron's:

Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law....

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

Strong stuff for a business magazine.

Meanwhile, in Washington, more Democrats are pushing on toward impeachment. Rep. John Conyers's H. Res. 635 now counts 17 supporters. Additionally, in December, California Senator Barbara Boxer asked legal scholars to analyze grounds for impeachment.

None of this is enough to get impeachment done, but it is something of a start. The Senate starts hearings on the warrantless wiretap program next week. Kagro X at The Next Hurrah is flogging impeachment with intelligence and passion. Stay tuned.

10 comments:

mikevotes said...

Okay, I'm with you in theory, but the problem is, you have to get Cheney out of office as well.

Bush is at least slightly constrained by his egoistic "place in history" sense of himself. A lame duck Cheney with no further aspirations in his life would have a completely free hand working from that black heart. True, he would be tainted with the impeachment, but Cheney's gotta go first.

Besides, all the crimes that Bush would be impeached for, torture, renditions, Iraq lies, NSA spying, all came from Cheney's desk.

The idea of a president Cheney actually keeps me up at night.

Of course, it appears increasingly likely that Cheney might be indicted or be persuaded to resign with some of the new revelations in the Plame Case, so, there's that.

Oh, and I noticed you linked to me, I'll happily reciprocate.

Mike

Anonymous said...

17 supporters! all we need are 201 more and a pickup of 18 Senate seats and we're there

fuck yeah! 2006 is going to be the year

mullet said...

Are you stupid? Get a clue. Impeachment! Ha! On what grounds? What EVIDENCE do you have? Lastly, don't you have to be PROVEN guilty before talking about impeachment, ala, Willy Clinton? Keep drinkin that kool-aid.

Anonymous said...

no you dumb shit we just needs the votes and we are fucking close its just 18 senate seets is all we need thats like the number of people at mcdonalds at 5am

The Bulldog Manifesto said...

Just remember, we aren't trying to impeach Bush because of any political vendetta. We are trying to impeach him because its the right thing to do. He has violated the constitution on a number of occasions, and he has violated the letter and spirit of our form of government.

It doesn't matter who would become president, it only matters that we follow the law.

He must be impeached.

Anonymous said...

he must be impeached he must be and that will win us the election this year we will have 98 senate seats (forget about those mormons they suck anyhow) and like that in the house and the repthuglicans can suck my ass

Constant said...

Thank you for blogging about this. I thought I'd leave a note and a few links to share with you what's going on. Perhaps you and others might be interested in knowing.

The state-level impeachment effort is underway. This method was successfully tested in 1903 against a sitting Federal Judge. [ Summary: Click ]

One thing to remember about these state-level impeachment efforts: It only takes one state, and the House can't hide this in committee. Rather, this will force the House members to publicly vote whether they are for or against the rule of law. Then the voters will have nine months to decide whether they trust the Congress, or find new leaders.

There is progress being made. The action is in Vermont. Other states are working. There are also local proclamations in the work. There is nothing the RNC can do to stop this local level debate. Please encourage your friends to discuss this with your state officials.

- - -

Other links

Here is some other information you or others may find useful. It is simple. It is designed to assist you and others in understanding this process.

Here's an overview of the plan in place: [ Click ]: More details: [ Click ]; Here's what's been accomplished in the last few days since this started. [ Click ] Here are sample discussion questions for your friends and other bloggers to use when approaching state officials. [ Click ] As an example here's how this pressure is highlighting problems with the President's statements, and what citizens can do [ Click ]

- - -

Remember, you're not alone, and don't lose hope! The President is desperate and in a no-win situation. The key will be when the States force the House to vote up or down. Good luck and let your friends know -- Karl Rove's 2006 plan is trashed! LOL ;-)

janinsanfran said...

Thanks to Constant for the excellent links.

Anonymous said...

how are the republicrat candidates on impeachment? the ones like casey in pennsylvania that is more ultraconservative than specter would he vote for impeachment as a loyal democrat or against as a loyal neocon?

IamBorder_Rat said...

The attached e-mail was sent to the FBI seeking investigation of Immigration Judges violating federal law by smuggling booze into a federal prison.

The Bush administration instead of prosecuting violations of federal laws by Immigration Judges instead termed calls made to report this criminal activity, as required by 28 USC 535(b), and calls to request information regarding when and where I was to testify as a witness against the agency in Dept. of Justice docket number B-00-2377 as being made for the purpose of harassment. Those calls also were made to report illegal attempts at witness tampering made by management personnel.

I was not allowed to cross examine the recipients of those calls. The agency, out of fear of what the recipients of those calls would testify to, did not even call the recipients of those calls to testify against me. Instead relying on an inaccurate transcript of calls.

The agency swore under oath that they shopped around for a transcriptionist until they found one that would write what the agency wanted written in those transcripts (Hearing Tape).

The same agency (Executive Office for Immigration Review) that refused to take actions against Immigration Judges for bringing booze into a prison, alleged I was intoxicated when I made those calls. I was not. Judges brought booze to work, not me.

I was not the one that had to bring booze to work with me. Kind of makes me wonder if the judges were sober on the bench. You have to worry about anyone who finds it necessary to bring booze to work.

The inaccurate transcript of calls reveals that there was an incident in which I called the agency with concerns that the Judges may have been intoxicated. That call, which is referenced in the inaccurate transcipt of calls, shows that the Judges were playing like they were in the Army one day and running around the office yelling, "Prepare to robe, Robe" Are these actions of sober people.

Perhaps the reason there has not been an investigation is because of the volume of cases that would have to be re-opened if it was revealed that the Judges were drunk when those decisions were rendered.

A Judge being intoxicated could be grounds for appeal of that Judge's decision.

However, based on the Bush administrations refusal to investigate we will never know whether th outcomes of cases depended on whether or not the Judges had cocktails before enterining the court.

I guess it is a good thing they were not deciding death penalty cases, only cases regarding whether an asylum applicant might be tortured or killed if returned back to his home country. Perhaps sobriety is not a requirement to make those life altering decisions.

The agency alleged intoxication when I made those calls yet I never brought a bottle to work or left early to make it to happy hour at a bar. The judges always left work an hour before quitting time and as shown previously brought their bottles to work.

These are pillars of the community who are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps impropriety appears different when viewed through the bottom of a glass. I do know I never had to bring a bottle to work with me. I never violated federal law by bringing booze onto the grounds of a Federal Prison.

Federal law is quite clear, it is a Federal Crime to bring booze upon the grounds of a facility that houses federal prisoners.


>Subject: Follow up to message re: wiretapping and security ( sent to FBI and Media)
>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:55:00 -0600
>
>ADDITION TO PRIOR MESSAGE (BELOW):
>
>Perhaps the media outlets I sent a copy of this message to should
>ask the Federal Government, to include the FBI, how the citizens of
>this country can have confidence that the Government can keep them
>secure from the treat of terrorism. THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT EVEN
>SECURE ONE OF THEIR OWN FEDERAL PRISONS. MAYBE THE GOVERNMNET
>SHOULD SECURE FEDERAL PRISONS BEFORE WORRYING ABOUT LISTENING IN ON
>PHONE CALLS AND TELLING US THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY. The
>FBI has yet to respond to the first letter I sent to them over two
>years ago.
>
>YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE FBI COULD RESPOND TO A LETTER WITHIN TWO
>YEARS. PERHAPS THE PHOENIX OFFICE DOESN'T THINK NATIONAL SECURITY
>IS A NATIONAL CONCERN.
>
> ---ORIGINAL
>MESSAGE---
>
>REQUEST FOR FBI TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE IMMIGRATION JUDGES FOR
>BRINGING BOOZE INTO A FEDERAL PRISON, FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS AND
>WITNESS INTIMIDATION
>
>
>THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND
>POLITICAL OFFICES:
>
> The White House
> The Vice President
> FBI Phoenix
> FBI Washington
> NBC Nightly News
> CBS Evening News
> Fox News
>
>PERHAPS SOMEONE ON THE ABOVE LIST WILL COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
>IMMIGRATION JUDGES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND
>THAT CALLS TO REPORT ILLEGAL ACTIVITITY SHOULD NOT BE TERMED AS
>HARASSMENT AND USED TO FIRE A WHISTLEBLOWER ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES
>BUT FORWARDED TO THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AS REQUIRED BY
>FEDERAL LAW.
>
>
>IMMIGRATION JUDGES ESCAPE FEDERAL PROSECUTION FOR BRINGING
>CONTRABAND AS DEFINED BY 28 CFR 511.11(c) INTO A FACILITY THAT
>HOUSES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS INMATES AND DEPT. OF HOMELAND
>SECURITY DETAINEES.
>
>IS THIS PRESIDENT BUSH'S IDEA OF FIGHTING TERRORISM BY BRINGING
>BOOZE INTO A FACILITY THAT HOUSES SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, WHERE IS
>THE CONCERN FOR SECURITY?
>
>This is to notify you that the Executive Office for Immigration
>Review (Director Kevin Rooney in particular) turned a blind eye to
>Immigration Judges smuggling booze into a facility that houses both
>Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates and Dept. of Homeland Security
>detainees.
>
>28 CFR 511.12(a) states, "...it is a Federal crime to bring upon the
>institution grounds any...intoxicants...."
>
>However, the court of appeals for the federal circuit, even though
>provided with a copy of the Dept. of Justice Schedule of
>Disciplinary Offenses which lists possession of intoxicants as an
>offense decided the MSPB judge did not error in determining that I
>could not have reasonably believed that things listed as offenses
>are actually offenses (Schoenrogge v. Justice, 05-3135) which is one
>of the reasons I am in the process of filing before the Supreme
>Court.
>
>Immigration Judges Sean H. Keenan, Thomas M. O'Leary and John Davis
>violated federal law and brought booze into a facility, located in
>Eloy, Arizona that houses both BOP inmates and DHS detainees.
>
>They were not disciplined in anyway.
>
>The whistleblower however had his signature forged on a promise to
>appear that was used as grounds for his removal (MSPB Docket no.
>DE-0752-03-0465-I-1 statement of facts and issues exhibits D to G).
>Check that signature against the hundreds of certificates of service
>I signed while working for the Immigration Court, it is a clear
>forgery.
>
>The same whistleblower had his calls to agency counsels Brooke
>Grandle and Charles Smith in which he reported acts of reprisal,
>falsification of computer records, wrongdoing and witness
>intimidation termed as inappropriate conduct and used as one of the
>basis for his removal.
>
>The allegation of witness intimidation involved my being called to
>testify on behalf of Elizabeth Sanchez in the discrimination matter
>she had filed against the agency (Dept. of Justice docket no.
>B-00-2377) and the Supervisory Legal Assistant's (Shirley Coolbaugh)
>attempts to influence my testimony in that matter.
>
>A review of the transcripts of calls will reveal that the acts of
>Ms. Coolbaugh and the failure of the counsel representing the agency
>(Charles Smith) to stop the acts of witness intimidation resulted in
>my contacting Mr. Smith and volunteering to submit evidence against
>the person who had called me as a witness (Ms. Sanchez). In my
>filing with the Supreme Court I will be alleging that this violated
>the due process rights of Ms. Sanchez.
>
>It gets even better. Chief Immigration Judge Creppy in his decision
>to remove me from federal service invented a prior finding of guilty
>to misconduct involving alcohol. I have never been charged with any
>alcohol related offenses and Mr. Creppy knows this based on a
>document he signed (statement of facts and issues exhibit N).
>
>The alleged prior misconduct in question was my off duty contacting
>of medical personnel that Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Robert
>Owens termed as disruptive in an attempt to fire me in December 1997
>because I had filed complaints against him and others. Judge Creppy
>(based on the brief and exhibits in that matter prepared on my
>behalf by Immigration Judge Jack Staton (statement of facts and
>issues exhibits A1-A133)) signed a document (exhibit N) stating no
>decision would be made and that the matter was moot.
>
>Mr. Creppy it would appear is less than honest. Since he knowingly
>made false statements in court documents one could say he comitted
>perjury. Of course it is begining to appear that dishonesty is a
>requirement to become an Immigration Judge. Which is sad, because
>there are good and decent Judges out there that I have worked with.
>
>As screwed up as the Executive Office for Immigration Review has
>become under Director Rooney do you think any action will ever be
>taken against these Judges for bringing booze into a federal prison
>in violation of federal law, or against Mr. Creppy for knowingly
>making false statements?
>

Related Posts with Thumbnails