Impeaching Bush to Preserve the Constitution-by Elizabeth Holtzman

[kpete]

November 12, 2006 at 03:24:14
Impeaching Bush to Preserve the Constitution

by Elizabeth Holtzman

The constitution doesn't require the minimum. It requires the maximum.

We can't have a president of the United States who puts himself above the rule of law if we want to continue with this democracy.

That's it. No ifs ands or buts.

Why did the president drive us into war on the basis of deception? And how did he do it and document what he knew and when he knew it. That's critical, because no American should have to give one drop of blood for a lie, ever.

What exactly did the president know about the torture and the mistreatment of detainees? What was he told and when was he told it? Why didn't he ever follow the law and bring to punishment and bring to accountability, those, even up to the top, who ordered or engaged in torture?

And what about katrina? We never got all the emails from the Whitehouse... Yes, we need investigations of Haliburton and yes we need investigations of corruption, but we need to get investigations that will ultimately expose the lies and misconduct that amount to impeachable offenses.

I believe we have the evidence we need. As a former prosecutor, I would like to have more. It's good to have your quiver full of a lot of arrows.

much more at:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_061112_impeaching_bush_to_p.htm

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Liz Holtzman is absolutely correct...

Laws were broken by the Chief Executive of the United States. He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He failed to do so with full knowledge and intent that was he was doing was illegal.

What good is the rule of law if he's allowed to get away with it? As the repuglicans said during the Clinton impeachment, "What will we tell the children?"

K&R

[rodeodance]

2. tell that to Dean, and Pelosi and Conyers etc etc

[Cooley Hurd]

4. I'm sure they know full well that impeachment is inevitable...

...their recent statements (about impeachment being "off the table") were made because the oversight and investigations will have to come first. I think DUer trumad called it "not putting the cart before the horse."

[H2O Man]

3. Yes, she is.

There are many intelligent democrats who recognize the need to impeach either Bush or Cheney. While I think it is better to go after the VP, I'm keeping an open mind. In time, even our anti-impeachment friends will see that we are correct.

[Tellurian]

18. For the Umpteenth time..

The Constitution has been broken. Over the last 6 yrs. The Constitution has been redacted
by the Bush Gang giving the Executive Branch unlimited power. As the Constitution reads
now, we cannot successfully prosecute Bush et al. until the Constitution is repaired.

you can read here to see how it was done:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the_star_chamber

[focusfan]

27. I just hope Congress can Fix Bush's screw ups

changing the constitution.

[lefthandedskyhook]

36. Interesting article, and we need to be inspired

There is indeed much cause for alarm in the unconstitutional legislation passed in September. It must be reversed & this constitutional crisis will likely come into full public view in the days ahead; as it should. I have to believe that this and other legislation will be reversed, but it will probably not happen without continued public pressure.

I cannot hold such a dim view of our prospects for the future, and even the author of the piece has displayed a much brighter outlook in his posts since the election. One thing he did not discuss that bears mention here is that no democracy can long survive without a stable middle class. The systematic destruction of the middle class during the past 25 years of conservative economic policies has had a devastating effect, and leaves us teetering on the brink of disaster.

How can we reinvigorate the middle class? The cornerstone of the effort in my view lies in renewable energy development. This effort could drive an economic engine which could potentially dwarf the IT revolution. One of the major benefits would be an eventual shift away from an oil based economy. I have spoken to an array of individuals ranging from nut-ball conservatives to staunch environmentalists about this idea, and every one of them said that they liked it. For more information go to: http://www.apolloalliance.org/

As John Kennedy said: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

[puebloknot]

37. Except that...

...We the People have our own "signing statement," signed and delivered on November 7, 2006.

Let impeachment go forward and try to tell me that it will be stopped because Bush, et al. have this shiny new and revised *Constitution.*

We need to get real and get on the project. Are we going to quiver in fear over all these patently illegal bills that have recently been rammed through?

They've got the paperwork, but we've got the power of the people on our side.

Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[Tellurian]

42. The Law is the Law..

What you say and what IS are two different things. Has any court proven his shiny signing statements are illegal or void?

You need to get real.

If you are suggesting revolutionary tactics as backing your designated "signing statement", well then
you will subjecting yourself to impoundment as a non combative terrorist.

I'd rather wait, having the Law at my back, rather confronting the Law on your say so!

Good Luck..don't forget to write!

[puebloknot]

43. The "law at your back"...

...*IS* impeachment. What is *very real* (and not because I say so) is that the way to show that these "shiny signing statements," not to mention a host of other issues, are illegal under the Constitution is for the incoming House to draw up articles of impeachment.

It goes without saying that *investigation* precedes impeachment, but much of that investigation has already been done by John Conyers and others, and is waiting to be used. I have to wonder about the machinations of our political process that are causing the esteemed Mr. Conyers to publicly join in the "off the table" comments of Ms. Pelosi. It's being said that she is soon to become the "most powerful woman in the world." She has not taken up residence in that position just yet, and I find it disturbing that she seems to be bringing a disturbing level of hubris of her own *to the table*!

"Not forgetting to write" is one of the most powerful tools we all have here at DU, in letters to news editors, in e-mails to our own contacts, wouldn't you agree? It's democracy in action!!! ;-)


Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[Tellurian]

44. Judy, instant gratification is not an option..

the wheels of Justice turn slowly. So, take a seat like everyone else and WAIT!

You can do some reading while you wait-

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/print/20060912_john_dean_impeachment_president

[puebloknot]

45. Who is asking for instant gratification?

Nothing I've written suggests that.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, once they start turning! If they're stuck in a rut, someone needs to get up out of their comfortable seat and give them a shove!!!!

I will take a seat where and when *I* decide, thank you. And I've already read every word of John Dean's article, and I do not agree with him. Nor do many other thoughtful Americans. I've read his books, I respect him, but I think he's wrong about this. I've posted here at DU about this already.

I'm sort of new here (18 months or so), so let me ask: Are you generally this rude? Has anyone told you that typing in all caps is considered tantamount to swearing online? Have I unwittingly broken some rule here that leads you to feel it's all right to sarcastically pontificate to me about my reading and sitting habits?

This is an open forum that alleges to invite a variety of opinions. There's an implied "shut up," with your invitation to sit down. So what's your gripe? Sometimes people have a problem with someone new being kind of mouthy. I've been lurking for a time here, but the election has stirred me, my country is in a hell of a mess, and I don't feel like sitting down and being quiet. I don't have my 1,000 posts yet, but if you and I keep at it, I might get there sooner than later! So thanks! It's a help.

Yours very truly,


Judy Barrett, Citizen
DemocraticUnderground.com
United States of America

[indepat]

5. Unfortunately tens of millions of brainwashed true-believers would rather have a 'puke

fuhrer than our Constitution. :crazy: :silly:

[morgan2]

6. I agree

Bush is setting a precedant to take away rights for no reason. Our government is based upon precedant, what will history say when someone else attempts this? The same thing say about suspending habeous corpus during a war. There is precedance.

[EST]

7. Impeachment is a political solution for a political problem.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art and not an indictment in the strict sense of the word. Its applicability is related to the concept of abuse of power more than it is about actual crime. In either case, Bush is eligible for impeachment.

If one looks critically at the attempted removal of Bill Clinton, noticing that it was primarily orchestrated to support the republican takeover of the government, the abuse of power by the perpetrators of that fiasco comes into focus. They, themselves, are more culpable than was their victim.

The problem the over zealous mobsters ran into was that they had no solid evidence of a basis for their charges.

Investigations to establish a mound of solid evidence, with the attendant press releases, are going to eviscerate the republican party over the next two years. The enormous amount of legislation that is going to be necessary to get the country back on track as well as root out corruption is going to require a twenty hour day, six day week commitment so the added constant harassment about impeachment, in the near term, is something they do not need.

Three supporting points:

If impeachment is not deflected at the git-go, the only things the warm stream media will want to talk about will be impeachment and the 2008 presidential contest. Nancy P is way too smart for that.

If the gang leaders feel more comfortable with no immediate threat, as any prosecuting attorney would probably agree, the evidence to be turned up in those pesky investigations is more likely to still be there when it's needed.

Inherent in every politician's promises, democratic ones, at least, is the permission to change one's mind. Contrary to the vaunted republican "value" of bull-headed "steadfastness," you and I - as well as most of those who see the world a bit like we do - appreciate the notion that we probably are not as smart or as well informed today as we will be tomorrow.

Call it flip-flopping if you will, but hanging on to a stupid, discredited idea in the face of countervailing information just ain't too bright. Don't tell the Bushbots-they'll never get it.

The information to support impeachment charges has to be first degree murder charge solid, especially in today's climate. We have to be able to convince a sizable portion of republican hangers on as well as the rest of us. It really does have to be multi-partisan.

If the overwhelming majority of the populace recognizes the need for impeachment, even after the cabal leaves office, and criminal charges, perhaps, the prospect of impeachment can be put right back on the table-if we're not too busy.

[TahitiNut]

12. Yes, and the Constitution is a "political document," too.

This catch-phrase approach to discussing impeachment relies upon a shifting meaning of the word 'poltical' (i.e. amphiboly) - taking it from the more principled sense of the word to the cynical connotations amplified by partisanship and UNprincipled back-stabbing.

[porphyrian]

8. Kick for the Constitution and the stubborn people who need to read this. - n/t

[omega minimo]

15. Not stubborn

Uninformed. Unconcerned about the integrity of the Constitution, which this OP points out.

Amazing too the number of people ready at this point to predict how many Senate votes there would be (no way to know that) and use bullshit prognosticating as an excuse to do the wrong thing. Seems the same ill-logic is what delivered Alito and Roberts onto the SC.

[porphyrian]

19. I think some of them are being stubborn, but you're right. - n/t

[omega minimo]

26. hey you're right, there's plenty of wrong reasons to

not do the right thing. :hi:


One of my fave "insults" from the non-Impeach set was "Constitutional Righteousness." :rofl:

(Well okay, if that's what it is, what's wrong with that?)

[Individualist]

20. Uninformed - or manipulative?

I'm amazed at the number of people on DU who don't understand the basics of the impeachment process: The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. Considering the large number of these posts, I suspect that some are simply due to ignorance of the process, others an intentional disinformation campaign attempting to discourage impeachment.

[Hubert Flottz]

23. "attempting to discourage impeachment"

IGNORE THEM, that's what I'm doing!

It's a great Freeper Sweeper this impeachment issue!

[]<ssssssssssss ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~< (Ouch Gawd Damn, I've been Ignored!!1!1!!1!!)

[Individualist]

24. First I debunk the disinformation,

then ignore if they seem to be an overt DLC cheerleader. :)

[seafan]

9. Holtzman: "Let me give you the "weapons" for those who are going to be the naysayers here."

Plenty of people didn't want to do it. They were forced to do it because of the American people.
People say, "Why should we have impeachment? We now have the democrats in charge. That's enough. Checks and balances are restored. Who needs it?
Well, we had checks and balances in regard to Nixon. We had the democrats controlling the house and senate and we had the president of the United States. Why'd we have to do impeachment if we had checks and balances?

The constitution doesn't require the minimum. It requires the maximum. We can't have a president of the United States who puts himself above the rule of law if we want to continue with this democracy.That's it. No ifs ands or buts.

The fact that we have checks and balances does not mean that we are not obliged to remove the person who threatens our democracy from the presidency.

Secondly, it's not about revenge. The effort against Richard Nixon was not about revenge. Far from it. It was a bi-partisan effort. it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people, most of whom had voted for Nixon. The same people who had voted for Nixon where the ones who phoned and telegrammed their members of congress and wrote the them and protested in front of them, because they understood that this man was shredding the constitution. It's not a partisan thing, not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of setting the right standards and holding those accountable who lied and deceived the American people and who want to shred the constitution still.

There are also those who say that this will disrupt congress. There are some people who say that congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Congress, during the impeachment of Richard Nixon, did all the other business of the country and the house judiciary committee did its job. Nothing was disrupted.

And to those who say it divided the country-- the impeachment of Richard Nixon brought it together. How? We all recognized that we shared the same values as a country-- the values being, not a president, one person, not a party, not a political situation, but our commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law. When we discovered that we shared those values, it strengthened us and united us.

snip

George W. Bush has committed grievous crimes against our Constitution. He must be removed from power.

Once again, the American people must force our elected representatives to act.


To add even more critical urgency to the move for impeachment, George W. Bush was never elected in 2000. As a result, he has engorged himself on the tremendous power, the international respect and potential of the United States of America to improve the living standards of the world's people.

But, with his teeth bared, he invaded, he murdered, he robbed, he tortured, he eavesdropped, he threatened, he neglected.

And he joked about it.



This is our duty, people. We MUST ACT NOW, to rid ourselves of this horror.

It will take tremendous pressure on all of our elected officials. Every day that passes is one more day that George W. Bush will hurt our nation, our people and our way of life.

Let's get after it.




(Slight edit added for obvious typos in the transcript.)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_061112_impeaching_bush_to_p.htm

[AntiFascist]

34. K&R, excellent article!

"Secondly, it's not about revenge. The effort against Richard Nixon was not about revenge. Far from it. It was a bi-partisan effort. it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people, most of whom had voted for Nixon

...

And to those who say it divided the country-- the impeachment of Richard Nixon brought it together. How? We all recognized that we shared the same values as a country-- the values being, not a president, one person, not a party, not a political situation, but our commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law. When we discovered that we shared those values, it strengthened us and united us."

[seafan]

40. Kick. n/t

[GOTV]

10. Impeachment is not a solution - conviction is....

... and until you have 67 Senators willing to convict impeachment will only get you a cocky acquitted and thus vindicated president.

[pberq]

11. Kick & Nominated

[Jcrowley]

13. Correct

K&R

[misternormal]

14. What good is impeachment...

... if there are not enough votes to remove him from office, which I believe there are not?

Won't that seem to the american public like "sour grapes" for the impeachment of Clinton?

I am not trying to start an argument, it is something that I am struggling with to come to an intelligent decision on this subject.

[riderinthestorm]

16. I believe the investigations will be very persuasive

so much so, that any comparison to Clinton's "high crimes and misdemeanors" won't look anything like sour grapes - BFEE's crimes are of such a magnitude that once they are exposed, Clinton's impeachment will be finally, irrevocably proven to be the farce of our country's political history in comparison.

Pelosi and Reid's comments that impeachment was "off the table" have galvanized many of us who believe that impeachment (like the filibuster) should never be out of consideration.

It is our constitutional duty as citizens to keep this important tool in place to ensure justice can be done WHEN it is demonstrated that crimes have been committed. Furthermore, the calls for keeping impeachment as an option must come from concerned citizens like us so that our reps understand that we expect them to do their jobs.

[misternormal]

17. Thanks rider...

... That was the type of answer to my question that I was looking for.

[Hubert Flottz]

21. I couldn't agree more!

Bush has got to go!

[cool user name]

22. If the Democrats do not impeach ...

I will never, ever vote for one again. It may sound harsh but if the party can't protect the Constitution for fear of political backlash, then they don't deserve my vote.

Fuck 'em.

I'm so pissed right now that once people get elected they lose all sense of what is right and wrong. It's been close to a week and all I hear is that impeachment is off the table. Why rule out something that you can have no way of predicting - except for politcal expediency, it makes no sense.

I think this bunch is turning out to be spineless too.

[tavalon]

39. I think they are just being political

Time will tell if they are being politically savvy or stupid. I'm quite sure their plan is to investigate and to have the public demand impeachment so they don't have to look like sour grapes people. While it rankles to hear them saying these things I am kept in an easy frame of mind by remembering that they are still going to do the investigations and that will lead inexorably toward impeachment for damn near everyone in the West Wing. Once I realized that that is what they were up to, I was able to not feel so strident about this. Nonetheless, I am lending my voice to the folks who are telling our Congresscritters to impeach and impeach now. It's good for them to have the pressure on them, otherwise how will they know when the groundswell of voter sentiment is behind impeachment if we don't tell them.

[cool user name]

25. Kicking ... (and screaming)

[maryallen]

28. You go, Holtzman! IMPEACH NOW!

[Vidar]

29. K&R.

[malaise]

30. Here's another good article

by Joseph L. Galloway.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/10/a_time_for_accounting.php

<snip>
Simply put, the jig is up. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld have come to the end of their free ride. No longer can they act without thought or ignore the boundaries of the Constitution, the law and common sense.

Did they really think they could get away with all of this without ever being called to answer to history and the American people?

They all deserve what's about to descend on their heads. They deserve every subpoena. They deserve every indictment. Most of all, they deserve a reserved place atop the ash heap of history.

[Mme. Defarge]

31. Amen. Amen. Amen.

If impeachment isn't appropriate under these circumstances, pray when would it be?

It's not about vengeance, it's about accountability and justice.

If we don't impeach and convict these felons, then let's storm the Bastille, as it were, and let out all of the convicted felons from all of the prisons because there is no longer the rule of law in our land.

[mmonk]

32. You're either for the constitution or you're against it.

[kpete]

33. thats exactly how I see it...

[Disturbed]

35. Warentless Spying is a Felony!

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” President George Bush

[earth mom]

38. You know it and it's as simple as that!

[earth mom]

41. Impeachment Call Echoes Near Independence Hall:

From a similar thread in LBN:

Background: Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives; and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), tagged to be the new Chair of the House's Judiciary Committee, are reporting that impeachment is "off the table." They are both seriously mistaken.

The people spoke on Nov. 7th. It is the collective will of the people to hold President Bush and V.P. Cheney accountable for their serial abuses of power. The Republic belongs to the people, not the Wirepullers. (Res Publica Est Res Populi: The Republic is the Property of the People.) It is our sons and daughters who have died in Iraq. It is our money, in the hundreds of billions of dollars, which has been wasted there in a war launched based on a pack of outrageous lies. (5) It is our Constitution that has been ignored, and our rights violated by the widespread and unlawful surveillance program, initiated without legal process and proper U.S. Federal Court oversight, by the Bush-Cheney Gang.

It is important, particularly, for Rep. Pelosi to remember recent history. An arrogant House Speaker, Tom "Bad Check" Foley (D-WA), (1989-95), forgot that he was only a trustee of his high office and not an owner of it. His constituents rebuked him for his hubris. Foley was voted out on the street. Foley's fate in 1995, could be Pelosi's fate in 2008!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2611282