Sunday, July 01, 2007

Bush Crimes That Will Get Him Impeached, Tried, Removed and Tried Again as a Common Criminal

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Watergate leftovers in the Bush administration learned all the wrong lessons. Dick Cheney, for example, learned how to stonewall, lie and obstruct justice. Outright treason he left to underlings who would take the fall for him. More ominously, however, these "leftovers" learned how to pull off a coup d'etat.

Those too young to remember Watergate are tempted to write that the GOP set the stage for impeachment hardball when they impeached Bill Clinton for lying about an act that was not even a crime. Admittedly, that was absurd. But it stands in stark contrast to the numerous real crimes that had been attributed to Richard Nixon during watergate and the numerous real crimes that will be charged and proven against George W. Bush.

It was, rather, the impending impeachment of Nixon that most surely set the stage for Bush, radicalizing the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. A recent book, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office lists only ten real crimes that should, by rights, should get George W. Bush thrown out of an office that he and a criminal gang of Goppers stole twice.

No progress can be made toward removing GWB until reality is acknowledged: Bush is not a legitimate "President", having conspired with prominent Republicans to steal the White House. The following heading is merely one of ten impeachable offenses that must be charged to George W. Bush. My notes follow. At the end this entry is a list of nine remaining offenses. Over the next several weeks, I hope to consider each in turn.

Bush 2000 Election Theft: A Coup d'Etat!

One's party affiliation is revealed by what is most vividly remembered about Florida. Republicans, brainwashed by the slanted media coverage will recall the "swamis divining" the intention of voters. By contrast, I remember most vividly a gang of GOP brownshirts attacking recounters who were merely doing their job, a court mandated civic, patriotic duty to make sure that all the votes were counted. It was not progressives or liberals who first used the word coup d'etat to describe that the nature of that stolen election. It was, rather, Paul Gigot, writing for the very voice of establishment America, the Wall Street Journal, who used that term. The best account of what really happened is found in John Dee's Coup2K.
In Florida, the Bush campaign quietly organized "rent-a-rioters" and flew them to Florida from all over the country. While disingenuously portraying the protests as "spontaneous grass-roots efforts," the Bush campaign sent special squads of GOP Congressional staffers who, in several instances, led violent attacks on Democratic observers, smashed windows, and tried to force their way into vote-counting rooms. This was not civil disobedience intended to show disagreement, but a concerted attack designed to threaten and intimidate. 38

Shortly after the election, the Bush campaign began a two-pronged program to import as many protesters into Florida as they could. The first prong was done openly: phone-trees reached out across the country to coax party loyalists to head down and fight Al Gore's "theft" of the election. This much is standard political fare. What was unusual was the more discreet second prong.

Under the direction of House Republican Whip Tom DeLay (of Texas, mind you), staff members of GOP Congressmen were quietly approached with offers of all-expenses-paid trips to Florida, "all paid for by the Bush campaign." 39 In addition to staying in swanky beach-side hotels, part of their reward would be an exclusive Thanksgiving Day party in Ft. Lauderdale.

According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 200 Congressional staffers signed on, with many of them staying in Florida for over a week. "Once word leaked out," said one GOP operative, "everybody wanted in." 40
-John Dee, Coup2K
That news coverage was inadequate accounts for the fact that these events are all but forgotten. They have certainly not gotten the post-mortem they so richly deserve. The attacks consisted of felonious assaults and battery, crimes aggravated by the fact that the violence was directed against public officials performing their sworn duties.

According to US Codes, the GOP attacks are nothing less than seditious.
Section 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Section 2383. Rebellion or insurrectionWhoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
US Codes

Before the phrase was taken up by Paul Gigot, the perpetrators themselves referred to their actions as a coup d'etat! What is a coup d'etat but an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power from a legitimate government? In the wake of 911, such an attack must be considered to have been a terrorist attack.


Why have not charges been brought against these thugs and the Republican politicians [Bush and the Bush campaign] who financed them?
The Miami protesters who were paid by the Bush recount committee were:
  1. Matt Schlapp, a Bush staffer who was based in Austin and received $4,276.09;
  2. Thomas Pyle, a staff aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, $456;
  3. Michael Murphy, a DeLay fund-raiser, $935.12;
  4. Garry Malphrus, House majority chief counsel to the House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice, $330;
  5. Charles Royal, a legislative aide to Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. $391.80;
  6. Kevin Smith, a former GOP House staffer, $373.23.
Three of the Miami protesters are now members of Bush’s White House staff, the Miami Herald reported last month. They include Schlapp, who is now a special assistant to the president; Malphrus, who is now deputy director of the president’s Domestic Policy Council; and Joel Kaplan, another special assistant to the president.

[See Miami Herald, July 14, 2002]
Can't happen here? It did! Dees continues:
Other "Congress Gang" platoons were sent to Fort Lauderdale, and some of the same Congressional staffers were also involved in a tense confrontation with Democratic volunteers in West Palm Beach. The group, which included Rev. Al Sharpton, was cornered while trying to retrieve some campaign signs. Things got quite tense and heated words were exchanged, but no violence erupted.

In the end, the secret GOP effort was so successful that at many demonstrations, GOP protesters outnumbered Democratic supporters 10 to one.

When it was all over, the Republican rent-a-rioters got their lavish Thanksgiving Day party, with plenty of free food and booze. Wayne Newton crooned "Danke Schoen" for the crowd, until screaming female fans stormed the stage. "Danke schoen, darling, danke schoen. Save those lies, darling, don't explain...." 46 But the real highlight of the evening was a conference call from Bush and Cheney. Instead of chastising the goon squad for their violent tactics, the candidates thanked them for their work. They even cracked mocking jokes about their rivals. 47

The judicious application of "spontaneous" protests and mob violence has always been a key feature of CIA destabilization. Such operations help put political pressure on the target, make for good TV propaganda, and are sometimes used to intentionally provoke a crackdown that is then widely publicized, often through journalists on the Agency payroll.

For example, the CIA's plan for the 1953 coup in Iran called for "stage[d] political demonstrations under religious cover," to include "staged attacks" on Muslim religious leaders which would then be falsely blamed on the Mossadegh government. 48

In their Chilean operations against Salvador Allende during the early '70s, one of the CIA's greatest propaganda victories was "The March of Empty Pots." Thousands of women marched through the streets banging empty cooking pots with ladles to protest food shortages. In reality, the shortages were artificially induced through a secret campaign of economic sabotage coordinated by the CIA along with ITT, Anaconda Copper and other multinationals. Many of the marching "housewives" were actually the spouses of wealthy anti-Allende partisans who were suffering little. Armed fascist gangs backed by the CIA marched along with the women, then provoked violent clashes with the police. Stories of police "attacking women with empty pots" flooded the world press. Dozens of other protests were organized by CIA front groups in order to artificially escalate tensions and portray Allende as having little support or control. 49

In 1990, during Bulgaria's first post-Communist elections, professional agitators, backed by millions in covert financing from the US, organized massive street protests that ultimately succeeded in unseating the duly elected government. Even though the renamed Communist party had won the overwhelming majority in voting which western observers on the scene widely agreed had been fair, the US (through the CIA) used the mobs to intimidate and ultimately hound officials from office. 50 -John Dee, Coup2K
Propaganda plays an important role in the post-coup period. According to Coup D'Etat - A Practical Handbook by Zionist headliner Edward Luttwak, the goal is not to explain the legitimacy of the coup d'etat. It is, rather, the fact that it is a fait accompli. This advice was taken to heart by James Baker and Bushco. Not concerned with the moral high-ground. Bushco worked overtly to derail the recount, to stop them while Bush was still ahead.

Clearly, Bush won the propaganda war, convincing just enough that it was Bush who was on the side of the law when, in fact, his thugs had just committed acts of seditious conspiracy, violations of US criminal codes. this was achieved through constant repetition, a tactic advocated by Luttwak.

The "Florida Game" is not over. Space and time prevents my addressing the similar issues clouding Bush's "victory" over John Kerry. There is evidence that the White House is still at work planning future election thefts in order to maintain what Rove had called a "permanent Republican majority". That makes no sense of course. If the GOP truly had a majority, it would not find it necessary to steal elections and disenfranchise voters not inclined to vote for GOP crooks.
Michael Winship: Keep Out the Vote
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Michael Winship

It's a John Grisham novel, this whole scandal swirling about the Justice Department. Like "The Pelican Brief" maybe, in which the motive for the murder of two Supreme Court judges of disparate ideologies remains mysterious until a plucky law student turns up an obscure case on appeal that would ravage protected wetlands for oil and gas development. Mayhem ensues.

In other words, nothing is as it first seems and it can take a while before some semblance of truth emerges. Especially in Washington, home of the scheme and the fraud. You have to peel back the layers of the onion, just as that plucky law student did (pluckily played in the movie version by plucky Julia Roberts).

What's the real motive for knocking off those eight, now nine, maybe more US attorneys -- Republican appointees all -- apparently replaced for insufficient fealty to the Bushie party line? In part, the truth may be lurking in the upcoming 2008 elections.

The White House, Attorney General Gonzales, and the Justice Department have tried to hide their real reasons, citing "performance concerns" as the reason for firing the prosecutors and blaming various underlings for mishandling the dismissals, then throwing them to the wolves, too -- the latest being Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who announced his resignation Monday. McNulty is the guy who indiscreetly told a Congressional hearing that the person behind the dismissal of Arkansas US Attorney Bud Cummins was Karl Rove, who wanted Cummins replaced with his buddy Tim Griffin. Oops.

Scratch the surface of anything vaguely nefarious at 1600 Pennsylvania and sooner or later you're likely to hit The Rovester. His most famous bit of dark wizardry is to take a negative about his own guy and turn it into a positive -- or, rather, a negative against the other side. In 2004, Rove defused rumors about the president's blotchy National Guard career by orchestrating attacks on John Kerry's legitimate Vietnam combat record. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth set sail and the rest is revisionist history. Klassic Karl.
The GOP, apparently plans to rule not by the "consent of the governed" but by repeated coups. That will be easier in theory than in fact. Nevertheless, the conditions for a Coup d'Etat seemed ripe in the year 2000. The GOP, as to be expected of a tight knit criminal conspiracy, was prepped to strike, to seize power illegitimately and opportunistically. Corporate sponsors expected a return on investment from the fascist state that the GOP leadership and its sponsors had envisioned. Luttwak outlines the conditions propitious for coups d'etat:
  • The social and economic conditions of the target country must be such as to confine political participation to a small fraction of the population."
  • The target state must be substantially independent and the influence of foreign powers in its internal political life must be relatively limited.
  • The target state must have a political centre. If there are several centres these must be identifiable and they must be politically, rather than ethnically, structured. If the state is controlled by a non-politically organized unit, the coup can only be carried out with its consent or neutrality.
Still from Luttwak, a description of a possible "second" coup from within the government following the election theft. It takes the form of a "Palace Revolution" and one sees in this the hand of Cheney, Rove and the insiders who consolidated, with the bureaucracies of government itself, the power of a right wing, fascist revolution.
The importance of this development lies in the fact that if the bureaucrats are linked to the leadership, an illegal seizure of power must take the form of a 'Palace Revolution' and it essentially concerns the manipulation of the person of the ruler. He can be forced to accept to policies or advisors, he can be killed or held captive, but whatever happens the Palace Revolution can only be conducted from the 'inside', and by 'insiders'...
--Coup D'Etat - A Practical Handbook, Edward Luttwak
The months and weeks ahead are crucial for the future of America and, until America collapses of the incompetence of its ruling cabal, the world. There is much to do. The illegitimate regime must be ousted. An ongoing war crime must be brought to an end. Reparations must be agreed upon. War criminals must be brought to trial. Legitimacy and confidence must be restored. Is America up to it? Has Luttwak already described the strategy of a possible "counter" coup?
"...If we were revolutionaries, wanting to destroy the power of some of the political forces, and the long and often bloody process of revolutionary attrition can achieve this. Our purpose is, however, quite different: we want to seize power within the present system, and we shall only stay in power if we embody some new status quo supported by those very forces which a revolution may seek to destroy. Should we want to achieve fundamental social change we can do so after we have become the government. This is perhaps a more efficient method (and certainly a less painful one) than that of a classic revolution. [emphases in original]

"Though we will try to avoid all conflict with the 'political' forces, some of them will almost certainly oppose a coup. But this opposition will largely subside when we have substituted our new status quo for the old one, and can enforce it by our control of the state bureaucracy and security forces. We shall then be carrying out the dual task of imposing our control on the machinery of state while at the same time using it to impose our control on the country at large. [emphasis added] ...

"Our strategy, therefore, must be guided by two principal considerations: the need for maximum speed in the transition phase, and the need to neutralize fully the forces which could oppose us both before and immediately after the coup. If, in the operational phase of the coup, we are at any stage delayed, then our essential weakness will emerge: we shall probably acquire a definite political coloration, and this in turn will lead to a concentration of those forces which oppose the tendency we represent (or are thought to represent). As long as the execution of the coup is rapid, and we are cloaked in anonymity, no particular political faction will have either a motive, or an opportunity, to oppose us. ...[A] delay will lose us our principal advantage: the voluntary neutrality of 'the wait and see' elements, and the involuntary neutrality of those forces which need time to concentrate and deploy for action."
The words of two revolutionaries should inspire true patriots to action --Thomas Jefferson and Che Guevarra. It was Jefferson who wrote what is still a revolutionary manifesto: the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
And from Che Guevara:
When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare
Clearly Bush, who seized power with both chicanery and violence, continues to rule illegitimately, unconstitutionally, unlawfully. The Bush regime is an outlaw regime. Bush does not merely break the laws of the land, his coup continues to subvert the rule of law, the very principles of our founding. The "peace", therefore, is already broken. Bush is at war with the people of the United States. He is at war with the Constitution, a people's charter, duly ratified, and in case law, statute, and Preamble, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Think of the Iraq war as a war waged by US troops on behalf of big oil companies and Bush cronies. Think of huge corporations literally buying, perhaps leasing, the resources of the United States to wage war or engage in other nefarious activities for corporate interests. Jack Abramoff was but the tip of an iceberg. Under Bush, there is not even the pretense that the US government, the executive branch especially, represents the interests of a free electorate. Your government has been hijacked.

Democrats See Chance to Fault Deficits and Pork

By Elizabeth Williamson and Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 29, 2007; Page A19

An industrial lubricants program, bus replacement -- and the Grout Museum. A $12 million earmark in an emergency defense bill for "industrial mobilization" on the Iowa border.

Democrats have pork spending on the menu for their grilling of Jim Nussle, President Bush's pick as White House budget director. Nussle's confirmation hearings will focus on the former congressman's pursuit of earmarks for Iowa, as well as ballooning deficits during his tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
...
Future installments. Each heading is an impeachable offense.

2. Lied about Iraq to Congress, the Public, and the United Nations.
3. 9-11 Cover-Up and Obstruction of Justice.
4. Violated Rights of Citizens including Habeas Corpus.
5. NSA Program to spy on Citizens without Warrant.
6. Violated International Treaties Including Geneva Convention.
7. Actively Encouraged, as a Policy, Use of Torture.
8. Gross Negligence on Hurricane Katrina.
9. Iraq Contract Corruption--Bremer "Lost" $8 billion in cash, sole source awards, and gross negligence in managing the peace.
10. Stole Ohio election in 2004.


30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good site - and well said comments.

whig said...

Those who are concerned first and foremost with the acquisition of power will not divest themselves of it when they have it.

I do not support a counter-coup strategy.

Len Hart said...

Impeachment and the subsequent filing of criminal charges is not a counter coup. Impeachment is a remedy authorized by the Constitution. Bush's THEFT of the election and numerous other crimes are not. Bush, moreover, has not merely violated the Constitution, he has subverted it. There is a difference and that difference amounts to high treason.

Diane B said...

I definitely agree George Bush and Dick Cheney have violated our Laws and should be IMPEACHED! Now! Today!, before they do more damage to our world namely, Iraq and U.S.A.

But these are my concerns, will we be able to with the current Attorney General and this Justice Department. Also, if the recent subpoenas given to the White House, that is, George Bush, go to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules in favor that the President can with hold these papers, executive privilege would be now formally decided, which up until this has never been done, it has always been assumed by the President. Normally Congress and the President would settle this out of court, except for Nixon, but in Nixon’s case it was a criminal matter. So, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bush, can we still impeach him with out the documents?

damien said...

Dianne, impeachment is undertaken by Congress on the basis of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It is entirely up to Congress to determine exactly what those terms mean. In an impeachment process the Senate functions as a court conducting a trial on the charges. As far as I can see the Supreme Court can't stand in the way. I'm not sure about the documents issue.

Just in passing, here's some further reading on the stolen elections for those interested. I particularly recommend (8) for the 2004 election:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Anonymous said...

Impeachment procedures are never going to be launched for this very reason: For the first time in the History of the United States, since the “Smoking Room”, the whole government from left to right has been explicitly accomplice to the crimes committed by the Bush administration, by giving him many – many! – blank checks in order to finance its illegal wars and, furthermore, by giving up investigating this administration last November, during election time, at the very moment where, if you all remember, the Bush administration was at its judiciary worst and weakest.

While the “Do-Nothing” Republicans have left room for this “Won’t-Do-Much-More” Democratic majority, these latest ones further betrayed vox populi by dropping all attempts to put a break on the Iraq war: the very prerogative they were loudly elected for!

America doesn’t need anyone to be impeached, it needs to dissolve and purge its whole Congress along with the tenants of the White House in 2008. (and bulldoze K-street à l’Israélienne along the way)

jkfan87 said...

HYSTERICAL! You talk abotu a "witchhunt" when it inovled a felony perjury case (one in which he was disbarred in Arkasas)m and then you actualy have the audacity to bring up the 2000 elections? Holy fuck! Move on! IT has been so thoroughly proven (even by lefties now) that Bush won 2000 fair and square.

You have ZERO credibility as someone who can talk about politicis now. I hope that little bitchfest was owrth it.

Sebastien Parmentier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

sorry. This, above, was a typical Fox-watching-war-loving-NRA-card-holding-Ann- Coulter-sibling Republican, with this flowery tongue they are now so famous for.

Let me wipe and bleach the spot for a minute, as to let the next commentator breath and write on a decent and clean board.

Thank you.

(and watch out: the floor may be wet for a little while more)

Anonymous said...

Bush has never done a thing "fair and square" at any point during his privileged life, and has had nothing less then wholesale immunity throughout the course of his life for most of his errant actions. His very behavior alone attests to that conclusion. Anyone that can not see the obvious malfeasance of this administration, doesn't have enough common sense to participate in a democratic styled society, which incidentally is rapidly slipping away from us.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

I don't get why right-wingers are so enamored of people like Bush and Cheney (who arguably aren't conservatives at all) that they will defend them no matter what.

Of course the left is not immune to this phenomenon either. It's as if people think they're part of some kind of sports team and they still feel obliged to cheer their team even when the team members have been caught doing crack or accepting payoffs to throw the game.

Anonymous said...

The standard comment of the right wing about the election theft of 2000 is "Get over it" and "Move On".

Remember the phony felon lists that preemptively removed from the voter rolls names of anyone who had been convicted of a felony -- even names that were only a vague match were removed. People with different middles names were removed. People with different spellings of last names were removed. People with different social security numbers were removed. The CEO of the company that removed the names (paid several million for this, btw), when confronted about this fraud, abruptly ended the interview, ripped off his microphone and called the cops! (you can find the footage on You Tube and other sources). Thousands of legitimate voters went to the polls and found their names had been removed. What remedy is there for those people?

Yes it is a bit hard to "get over" people stealing one of the most precious things we have in this country - the right to vote, and the right to decide who should govern them.

It's a bit like telling a rape victim to "Move on" and "Get over it".

Anonymous said...

... or, perhaps, resembling last week's infamous comment from Bill Oh'Really?, about that young teenager victimized by a sexual predator on her way from high school, it was all Miss Liberty's fault for wearing a miniskirt and a sexy tank-top before the Bush administration....

damien said...

I'm going to start appending the following greeting to my posts with the Democrat Bush-enablers --

"Matt, Tom and Michael send their regards. And Garry, Charlie, Kevin and Jim all speak highly of you and admire what you're doing. Joel Kaplan would like to thank you personally."

Then link to this post. I think we need to get it home to people that the theft of their government was personal and real.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats are suffering from the Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

Anonymous said...

Good one. But I have another theory:
The democratic party is victim of the "Long Time Hostage Victim Syndrome",
the one in which hostage victims start to side ideologically with their oppressors after months of mental and physical abuses.

Diane B said...

Len, I wrote this earlier today and nobody seems to have an answer. Please help us! This is what I wrote:

I definitely agree George Bush and Dick Cheney have violated our Laws and should be IMPEACHED! Now! Today!, before they do more damage to our world namely, Iraq and U.S.A.

But these are my concerns, will we be able to with the current Attorney General and this Justice Department. Also, if the recent subpoenas given to the White House, that is, George Bush, go to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules in favor that the President can with hold these papers, executive privilege would be now formally decided, which up until this has never been done, it has always been assumed by the President. Normally Congress and the President would settle this out of court, except for Nixon, but in Nixon’s case it was a criminal matter. So, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bush, can we still impeach him with out the documents?

Anonymous said...

“Goodness gracious!” would say good old Rummy: The war in Afghanistan has not only been lost by the military – They have not endured American casualties on an Iraqi scale, sure, but they’ve accomplished nothing -, lost of course despite billions from the American tax payers; but surprisingly, it is the American energy corporations, puppetting all they can the Bush administration and Amid Kharzai who have really lost all dream of sucking dry the natural gas from the Black sea.

If Dick Cheney still have a chance to “steal the filet mignon from the French” in Iraq, it is clear that, in central Asia, Putin has stole a juicy pot roast from the American energy companies !


“Russia has swiftly moved to consolidate the gains of Putin's energy summit with his Kazakh and Turkmen counterparts on May 11-13. The trilateral Central Asian summit had agreed, among other things, to modernize and enlarge the gas capacity of the Soviet-era pipelines that run from Central Asia to Russia; to increase the volume of gas exports from Central Asia via Russian pipelines; to deepen further Russian participation in developing Turkmenistan's gas reserves; and to commit long-term Kazakh oil exports to Russian pipelines.

As per the assessment by an American area specialist, "Western energy policies in Eurasia collapsed in May 2007. During this month, Russia seems to have conclusively defeated all Western-backed projects to bring oil and gas from Central Asia directly to Europe ... Cumulatively, the May agreements signify a strategic defeat of the decade-old US policy to open direct access to Central Asia's oil and gas reserves. By the same token they have nipped in the bud the European Union's belated attempts since 2006 to institute such a policy."


Ouch. As Bush is welcoming Putin within the sound and media proof walls of the White House today, I’m sure that a second chapter on the “Energy Task Force” epic is going to be written.

Len Hart said...

jkfan87 said...

HYSTERICAL! You talk abotu a "witchhunt" when it inovled a felony perjury case

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, which I repeat for the slow witted among us: impeaching someone for lying about a blowjob is akin to impeaching someone for jaywalking. Jaywalking is at least a crime. But, if the latter is a crime, then why am I not locked up for life?

To impeach someone for "lying" about something that was not a crime IN FACT made the GOP look like the gang of dumb asses, crooks and utter dipshits that they have always been but managed to spin. Call it lipstick on a pig!

Clue: only Kenneth Starr, so desparate to make a case, any case, would have broken state and federal laws to try to pin that NON-CASE on Clinton.

NO reputable prosecutor would have EVER tried to prosecute such a stupid, non-case unless he had been paid off by the GOP.

Starr, an intellectual light weight, spent some 70 million dollars of tax payers money and the best he could do was write lurid descriptions of a cum stain. If you like, I can document a criminal case against STARR, one in which he most certainly broke Federal and State laws.

For 70 million bucks, the taxpayers got a cheap porno novel that Starr dared send up to the House.

(one in which he was disbarred in Arkasas)m and then you actualy have the audacity to bring up the 2000 elections?

Call me old fashioned, but I happen to think that Nazi brownshirts who openly violated federal laws ought to be in a Federal Lockup! And so would the GOP if it truly believed in "Law and Order".

Holy fuck! Move on! I

I'm writing a history that I promise you won't like. But --guess what! I don't give a shit!

T has been so thoroughly proven (even by lefties now) that Bush won 2000 fair and square.

Wrong! Bush stole the election with an act of criminal violence. It's a fact! Live with it. Go get a blood pressure check before you choke on your own evil bile.

Clue to the GOP: we are sick of your shit!

You have ZERO credibility as someone who can talk about politicis now. I hope that little bitchfest was owrth it.

Wrong! Your stupid, uninformed comments just notched up my credibility immeasurably. Next time, peddle your GOP puke to the Heritage Foundation.

A final shot: the GOP is endemically stupid, crooked, and delusional. The GOP is not a political party, it's a criminal conspiracy. Fuck 'em! On second thought: PROSECUTE THEM!

Diane B said...

I guess nobody knows what could happen if the Supreme Court upholds Executive privilege. I give up asking. Good bye you Guys.

Len Hart said...

o, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Bush, can we still impeach him with out the documents?

Possibly! Depends on the specific article. I think there is enough prima facie evidence against him to impeach right now. His order sending troops to Iraq is no secret. It's in the public record. That act was a war crime. Bush ordered it and Bush bears responsibility for it.

Historically, "panels" charged with investigating specific charges will subpoena "evidence". If Bush refuses, he could, conceivably, be impeached for obstruction of justice.

But, a favorable SCOTUS decision, takes that option off the table. And without the document in question, it is hard to make a substantive charge stick. Having said that, an impeachment is not a run o'the mill criminal procedure and, as we have seen with Clinton, the act (a BJ) was not even a crime. His impeachment was entirely political.

If the votes are there, Bush could be impeached with a just lot of high sounding language in a list of articles approved by the House. Conviction and removal in the Senate is another matter.

I favor impeachment because it simply must be done. Sadly, Bush has packed the court. I have been warning anyone who would listen for years about SCOTUS. For example, I was alarmed when Nixon nominated Rehnquist.

Impeachment is a politcal remedy given a "legal" face. There is no precedent for SCOTUS overturning the passage of a Articles of Impeachment. It's never been tried. If Bush were impeached and subsequently convicted and removed by the Senate, he could, I suppose take a case to the High Court. Whether it would agree to hear the case is another matter. This is all highly speculative and without precedent.

The court has handed down lousy decisions in the past and will do so again. There is always the remedy described by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

I favor a new national convention but do so fearful that it might be hijacked and/or intimated by the right wing.

I favor the direct election of Presidents with a preference voting system, an "instant runoff", if you will. I also favor a Constitutional Amendment that strips corporatins of "personhood". They are NOT people, they are but legal abstractions. To say FOX has a "First Amendment right" is ludicrous on its face. FOX is NOT a person. It is, however, a gang of crooks and liars.

Because Fox is not really a person, I cannot libel those lousy crooked bastards. In fact, my vocabulary is not adequate to the task.

Because corporations are NOT persons, corporate contributions to campaigns and candidates can be ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. This is NOT a First Amendment issue.

Because corporations are NOT persons, networks may be required to hold regular debates and political ads can be consigned to the dust bin of history where they belong.

Because corporations are NOT persons, they can be regulated however the people desire.

But, alas, the crooked rich will never allow it to happen. Only the very, very rich and corporate will continue to prosper while the rest of us bend over.

America, I mourn your passing.

Len Hart said...

Anonymous said...

It's as if people think they're part of some kind of sports team and they still feel obliged to cheer their team even when the team members have been caught doing crack or accepting payoffs to throw the game.

I think you summed it up. America has always seemed more vulnerable to that kind of thinking. I am, perhaps, less vulnerable having attended a high school with a lousy football team. We had to find other things to "cheer" about. We found one of them in our championship debate team. Heh heh heh

Diane B said...

Len, Thank you for helping me understand what could happen, when Impeaching George Bush! It's path is full of thorns, I sure hope the Roses bloom and George Bush is forced out of office!!

I fear our Country will not survive, as a Nation. I look forward to your next article!

Len Hart said...

Diane B,

Thanks and I share your concern. My biggest problem has been trying to get people to understand just how revolutionary Bush's regime has been. Bush, of course, has taken advantage of the fact that Americas are increasingly overworked and stretched to the breaking point. That's due to a pernicious economic trend that began with the Reagan administration, another GOP crook.

The Democrats have been a big disappointment primarily because they get their money from the same sources --only they get less of it. That's how the fascists maintain the illusion of a two party system, the illusion of Democracy. It's all a sop and has been since R. Reagan.

Still --Bush has pushed the envelope. He wants an outright dictatorship, a carte blanche to cut his oil deals with impunity. He desires nothing less than a license to wage war, murder and torture wherever the search for oil should take him.

It was an Iranian ambassador who told me personally back in Houston, TX that "...oil is a curse!"

He was right.

Anonymous said...

Preacherman Fuzz proclaimeth...

Sterling epistle, Brother Len.

As Gabriel's horn
Tumbled Jericho's wall,
So shall your posts
Join Freedom's Chorus
To topple tyrants present.

It will be an honor and a great pleasure, 'squire, to make the upcoming novena with you and your democratically uppity Bretheren in this most Holy Season of Impeachment.

Praise Jefferson!

Amen Franklin!

Hallemuthafuckenleullah!

Damien, very devious of you. Apart from the HeriFound ungulates, who else would you suggest we be releasing your gambit upon? Be surprised if you havn't got a substantial list of their names and web addresses. I'm in like Flynn.
Bet you used to secretly draw moustaches and specs on Betty Windsor's mug when it graced our purple note.


Yes, Sebastian, it’s called Stockholm Syndrome.

From Wiki. “Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.

Millionaire heiress Patty Hearst, was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army. After two months in captivity, she actively took part in a robbery they were orchestrating. Her unsuccessful legal defense was that she suffered from Stockholm syndrome and was coerced into aiding the SLA. She was convicted and imprisoned for her actions in the robbery, though her sentence was commuted in February 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and she received a Presidential pardon from Bill Clinton”
.


“Tanya” Hearst was already in custody when “The Man” surrounded and incinerated all but a couple of the gang (SLA). Apparantly, a negotiated settlement was surplus to the requirement of absolute justice being dispensed, locked and loaded in time for the “Six O’Clock News” Celebrity Roast.

Seeing a photo of her after all these years posing as a revolutionary soldier in front of a graphic of a seven headed serpent, conjured some very stange emotions indeed.

George Bush's Impeachment said...

Impeachment, lets do it!

damien said...

Well said on the oil, Dante Lee. Putin must find it hard to stop laughing around Bush, it's such a joke to think that Bush could compete against a political master like Putin. Pepe Escobar has a fantastic series about all the 'stans. Here's his take on Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Yep, Fuzzflash, I've given the "shove the impeachment in your face" method a go over here. I intend to continue. I also reiterate my recommendation (8) from above about the stolen 2004 election. Bush lost his traditional support in the rural sector and only won overall by increasing his hold in the big cities, Democrat heartland. All of this when (a) he didn't campaign there, (b) there was increased urban voter turnout, and (c) Kerry had campaigned vigorously in the cities with strong party activism. The results are simply not believable. It was a electoral con job from start to finish with a cooperative media.

Len, this is a brilliant post by you, if you don't mind me saying. There's so much detail, terrifically argued, as usual (I'm still making my way through some of the links). Well done! I note that you are planning to cover 9/11. Here's a link on the Saudis you may find useful. Cheers.

Len Hart said...

George Bush's Impeachment said...

Impeachment, lets do it!

Thanks for the video link. I may embed that video for another post, if you don't mind.

If you want a great stereo effect, open the same video in YouTube and play both back at the same time. Demoguogery and scare tactics is funnier is stereo.

Great comments, all : ) I am honored that you choose this forum to share with.

Bonne chance, mes amis !

Len Hart said...

BTW --- I have added a link to George Bush's Impeachment to the blog roll.

Diane B said...

Len, you are right Ronald Reagan, started with the destroying of America, first he let all the mentally ill patients out of the Ca. State Mental Hospitals. Closed them, now you can go to almost any street in. So. Ca. and see Mentally ill homeless people, this is tragic. The suffering he has caused, in that one area is very disturbing, very disturbing indeed.

You can then go to when he was president allowing the sell off of Healthy Businesses which employed many, many people, this became the
first outsourcing of good American jobs.

Now, lets look at defense, Ronald Reagan really kick started our National debt.

These are just a few dismal reminders of what Ronald Reagan left behind, long after his Presidency.

Again, thank you for educating all of us to what is going on, in Washington, D.C. I really fear that we will not survive as a Nation if this continues. Our dollar is weak, our National Debt is staggering, I fear it will collapse, and I don't think at that point that many of the people would want to continue as a unified Nation. Not after what we have seen.