Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Kucinich Presents 35 Articles Of Impeachment Against Bush


Kanada Kev
 Share

Recommended Posts

Full list of articles:

http://www.democrats.com/files/amomentoftruth.pdf

Democrats.com Applauds Dennis Kucinich for Introducing Articles of Impeachment

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House of Representatives right now introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com, said: "We've waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died. We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot. We congratulate him on his historic leadership, and pledge to do everything in our power to persuade Congress to adopt all 35 Articles and put George W. Bush on trial before the Senate of the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers wanted."

Fertik continued, "Some might question why Congressman Kucinich has done this now. My question is why 434 other Congress Members have not done it before. Despite the uncountable and unspeakable crimes this administration has committed, George Bush and Dick Cheney remain in power and immune from prosecution. Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney now - before they further abuse their power by pardoning for all of their crimes."

David Swanson, creator of ImpeachCheney.org, Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, said: "Congressman Kucinich is the first, but we will be pressuring 434 other Representatives to join him. We must act to prevent an attack on Iran and to reestablish the rule of law for future administrations.

"Bush has had many accomplices, first and foremost Vice President Cheney. But our Founders created a single executive precisely so that we could hold that one person accountable for the actions of the Executive Branch. It is high time we did so, and millions of Americans will be urging their representatives to support the effort being led by Congressman Kucinich.

"Bush's public comments have time and again advertised his indifference to the laws he is violating. Not only does overwhelming evidence show us that Bush knew his claims about WMDs to be false, but the president has shown us that he considers the question of truth or falsehood to be laughably irrelevant. When Diane Sawyer asked Bush during a televised interview after the war was underway why he had claimed with such certainty that there were so many weapons in Iraq, he replied: 'What's the difference? The possibility that [saddam] could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.'

Swanson continued, "What's the difference? Hundreds of thousands of corpses and a fatal blow to the rule of law among nations. That's the difference - unless we remove impeachment from the Constitution by failing to exercise it, in which case truth will no longer matter any more than justice or peace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Stewart covered the release of a report yesterday which concluded that Bush et al misrepresented the facts and the intelligence that they had regarding the links b/w Iraq and Al Queda before heading to war. And he noted how this report (which was a bipartisan congressionsal or senate report, i can't recal exactly) received almost zero coverage in the mainstream media (TV and web) other than a short mention on the NBC news. It's rather amazing. And yet, the right will still contend that there is a liberal bias in the U.S. media. It really is remarkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kucinich introduced a motion to impeach Cheney last year and it didnt get far at all. He's considered a bit of a wingnut but this new impeachment process may very well have legs.

Gosh kids, falsely going to war is actually worse than lieing about a hummer in the oval office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gotta be something for posterity here. I'm pretty sure that the impeachment process can lead to criminal charges too. That's what i'm hoping the long term goal is here. Send that fucker up the river for the rest of his useless life....."fool me once...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it astonishing that this wasn't headline news last night. WTF is going on? Goes to show how many drones never seek out information from alternate sources (guess most people only use the interwebs for porn and Perez Hilton). Wonder how many people will vote in the elections this year ...

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mainstream_media_snooze_as_Kucinich_offers_0610.html

Mainstream media yawns as Kucinich offers impeachment

Muriel Kane

Published: Tuesday June 10, 2008

Subscribe | StumbleUpon

Print This Email This

On Monday evening, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) took to the floor of the House of Representatives to read out 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush in an almost five-hour marathon.

Kucinich's action made an immediate splash on the Internet. For example, at progressive website Democratic Underground, the historic performance quickly garnered an astonishing 56 separate threads on the most-recommended list.

By noon on Tuesday, RAW STORY's article on the subject was the top political story of the day at digg.com and the 10th most popular for the last year. A separate article at afterdowningstreet.org was also high in the ratings. Both sites, as well as Kucinich's own webpage, were experiencing slowdowns due to the volume of traffic.

However, the mainstream media were far more reticent in their coverage of Kucinich's resolution -- much as they were following the release last week of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the administration's misuse of prewar intelligence. For example, the Washington Post and USA Today had short items in their blog sections, while other major outlets merely ran wire service coverage from AP or Reuters.

Kucinich supporter John Kusumi responded angrily at OpEdNews, writing, "The most important thing going happened on Monday night. An event that matters greatly to the course of history and to all Americans. Did you hear about it? Did ABC, CBS, and NBC break into normal programming with special coverage? Are there special alerts and bulletins on the cable news networks, where people can see them? No, no, and no!"

NewsHounds was equally scathing, saying, "So, what if they impeached the president and nobody reported it? As of 3AM EDT the goddam liberal media is largely silent on Dennis Kucinich's introduction of Articles of Impeachment on the floor of the House last night. Are they afraid of getting it 'wrong'? Just report it, as does RawStory. ... No matter what you think of it, this is news. News. Relevant, important, history-making news. It was live, on C-Span. Reality TV. Yet our most famous, trusted, 24/7/365 cable news media outlets are asleep at the wheel - or holding back. Neither is a good option."

More considered analysis of the actual political and historical significance of Kucinich's move was mixed. At The Huffington Post, political historian Joseph A. Palermo, the author of Robert F. Kennedy And the Death of American Idealism, headlined a blog entry "Dennis Kucinich Makes History Again - Impeach Bush!"

Palermo wrote, "Kucinich's lengthy and detailed indictment of this wayward president is the most thorough and powerful case made to date. He outlined a litany of high crimes and misdemeanors and showed without a shadow of a doubt that George W. Bush deserves to be impeached and removed from office. Kucinich made clear that Bush has violated his oath of office and his Constitutional duty that the laws be 'faithfully executed.'"

In contrast, Salon.com's political blogger, Alex Koppelman, wrote dismissively, "Some liberals in the blogosphere are complaining about the dearth of coverage of Kucinich's resolution. I have to disagree -- as I've pointed out before, when discussing complaints of liberal bias from the right, the media is in the business of covering news. This barely qualifies; if it deserves mention in the mainstream media at all, it certainly doesn't deserve to be accorded the status of something big and breaking. I'm sorry, but the action of a lone congressman who's widely considered something of a laughingstock, especially when it's clear that action will never come to anything, just isn't especially newsworthy."

Jim Trakas, Kucinich's Republican opponent in next fall's Congressional election also took the opportunity to blast his rival, complaining that "on the day his constituents first started paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, Congressman Kucinich uses his time and efforts for more political games and not trying to solve the real problems in Washington."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From pbs.org (i guess this will be number 18):

"For high crimes and misdemeanors"

The 17 impeachments in U.S. history

Impeachment is the ultimate power the Congress has over those in the federal judiciary and executive branch who misuse their office. Although it was a fundamental element of the balance of powers established in the Constitution, Congress has only moved to impeach 17 men. Their crimes ranged from drunkness to planning an invasion of Florida with the British. Follow the timeline to the right to track the 17 cases and their outcomes.

----------------------

now this one tells about some of the ones that got away :

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

“High Crimes and Misdemeanors:†A Short History of Impeachment

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.â€

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!

What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors�

Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors†is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.

The Infamous Sixteen

Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.

The Small Fry

The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment.

Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings, on March 12, 1804, and was believed to have been insane.

Associate Justice Samuel Chase , a strong Federalist, was impeached but acquitted of judicial bias against anti-Federalists. The acquittal on March 1, 1805, established that political differences were not grounds for impeachment.

Other officials impeached were implicated in bribery, cheating on income tax, perjury, and treason.

The Big Fish

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second.

Johnson, a Southern Democrat who became president after Lincoln's assassination, supported a mild policy of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The Radical Republicans in Congress were furious at his leniency toward ex-Confederates and obvious lack of concern for ex-slaves, demonstrated by his veto of civil rights bills and opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. To protect Radical Republicans in Johnson's administration and diminish the strength of the president, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which prohibited the president from dismissing office holders without the Senate's approval. A defiant Johnson tested the constitutionality of the Act by attempting to oust Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. His violation of the Act became the basis for impeachment in 1868. But the Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, and Johnson was acquitted May 26, 1868.

Senator Charles Sumner, witness to the proceedings, defined them as “political in character.†Historians today generally agree with his assessment and consider the grounds for Johnson's impeachment flimsy—the Tenure of Office Act was partially repealed in 1887, and then declared unconstitutional in 1926.

Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged down—though not defeated—by the “character issues†brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.

The infamous “Starr Report†outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998 and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. (See also William Jefferson Clinton)

The One That Got Away

Of thirty-five attempts at impeachment, only nine have come to trial. Because it cripples Congress with a lengthy trial, impeachment is infrequent. Many officials, seeing the writing on the wall, resign rather than face the ignominy of a public trial.

The most famous of these cases is of course that of President Richard Nixon, a Republican. After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. “In all of this,†the Articles of Impeachment summarize, “Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.†Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...