Photo: San Francisco Beach Impeach, April 28, 2007, by David B PageSIGN PETITION
25 May 2007
23 May 2007
Keith Olbermann Tells It Like It Is
Once again, in his Special Comment of May 23, Citizen Olbermann speaks Truth to Power.
To Those Who Thought The New Majority in Congress Would Change Things...
Grab your ankles.
The bastards announced their intent to cave in and let Bush have the Iraq occupation funding bill he wants, no strings attached.
I said it after the election and I'll say it again now. The troops won't be brought home until Fall of 2008, and even then, they *all* won't be coming home.
The bastards announced their intent to cave in and let Bush have the Iraq occupation funding bill he wants, no strings attached.
I said it after the election and I'll say it again now. The troops won't be brought home until Fall of 2008, and even then, they *all* won't be coming home.
22 May 2007
Senate Dems Prove Me Right
Recently I posted a letter of May 15 which the chairs of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to AG Gonzales, asking him to please comply with their subpoena of May 8. It closed thusly:
"You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance. Your action today is in defiance of the Committee's subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing so.At that time I said I expected the Dems to wimp out again. Today, they lived up to my expectations by sending *another* letter asking him to please comply. This one says:
Please provide the information requested by May 18 at 10 a.m., so that the Chairman and the Committee can assess any objections to the subpoena or privileges claimed by the Department. The Committee intends to get to the truth."
"... we reiterate our requests for the following documents and ask that you provide them to this Committee no later than June 5, 2007:"They say "please" no less than four times. What will they do when he ignores this one, threaten him with a "time out?"
Contact Leahy, Spector, and your Senators to demand they file Contempt of Congress charges and initiate Impeachment proceedings.
General Strike Planned in Portugal
To protest cuts in social services, wages and job security, Portuguese unions have called for a General Strike on May 30.
Click on pic for story.
21 May 2007
20 May 2007
Miracle Woman Casts Doubt on 9/11 Cover Story
Yet another fact one has to ignore in order to accept the rulers' theory.
17 May 2007
Gonzales Ignores Subpoena - Committee Says "Please?"
Below is the text of the letter sent by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Abu Gonzales. Seems to me they should be filing Contempt of Congress charges, but I expect to Dems to wimp out again.
May 15,2007
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
You did not appear before the Committee or produce any documents and you have
provided no explanation for your failure to do so. Today at 2 p.m. was the return date
and time for you to appear before the Committee and bring with you the documents
compelled by the Judiciary Committee's May 2 subpoena.
Please provide the documents compelled by the subpoena to the Committee immediately
and without further delay. You should at least have provided in writing the specific
reasons for not producing any responsive documents, including any objections to the
subpoena or privileges claimed by the Department. You failed in that obligation, as well.
If you have anything to offer in these regards please do so by May 18 at 10 a.m.
You have twice before been asked to provide these documents without being compelled
by a congressional subpoena. First when you appeared before the Committee last month
and then by letter dated April 25.
On May 2, acting under the Committee's April 12 authorization and after consultation,
the Chairman issued a subpoena compelling you by today at 2 p.m. to produce all of Mr.
Rove's e-mails in the Department's possession related to the Committee's investigation,
including those obtained by Mr. Fitzgerald. The subpoena requires you to produce any
White House account, Republican National Committee account, or other account, in the
possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice. It also calls for you to
appear before us unless you produced the required documents to the Committee prior to
the return date and time.
You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the ,documents
and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance. Your action today is in
defiance of the Committee's subpoena without explanation of any legal basis for doing
so.
Please provide the information requested by May 18 at 10 a.m., so that the Chairman and
the Committee can assess any objections to the subpoena or privileges claimed by the
Department. The Committee intends to get to the truth.
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER
Ranking Member
15 May 2007
Finally, Some Good News
Jerry Falwell, founder of the so-called "Moral Majority" died today.
According to unconfirmed reports, he was met at the Gates of Hell by Satan himself, who said, "Heckuva job, Jer!"
11 May 2007
Impeach this President, or Remove the Impeachment Clause
From Dave Lindorff
What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so
frightened?
Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush
and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad
idea.”
The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon
flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a
diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing
important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the
administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings
would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities
in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive
legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement)
and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of
absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were
setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point.
Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White
House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all
the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a
stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply
wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as
one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want
it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate
for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution,
not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney
president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in
Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president
because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few
months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently
about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to
do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove
him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not
want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is
exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general
managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The
same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either
a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need
to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An
impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the
president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the
House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether
to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an
impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only
after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full
House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations
before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a
grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the
case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’
communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no
denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question
the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime”
warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws
duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of
the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he
asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in
chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to
ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to
establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether
this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the
president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive”
claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress
outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US
and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of
command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president),
such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy
(or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake” document forgery scandal, conspiracy
to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in
responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc.,
which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the
Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have
become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
------------------------
About the author: Philadelphia journalist Dave Lindorff is co-author, with
Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for
Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
due out in paperback later this month).
His work is available at This Can't Be Happening
What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so
frightened?
Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush
and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad
idea.”
The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon
flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a
diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing
important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the
administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings
would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities
in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive
legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement)
and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of
absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were
setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point.
Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White
House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all
the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a
stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply
wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as
one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want
it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate
for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution,
not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney
president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in
Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president
because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few
months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently
about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to
do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove
him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not
want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is
exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general
managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The
same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either
a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need
to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An
impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the
president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the
House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether
to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an
impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only
after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full
House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations
before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a
grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the
case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’
communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no
denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question
the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime”
warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws
duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of
the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he
asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in
chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to
ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to
establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether
this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the
president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive”
claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress
outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US
and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of
command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president),
such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy
(or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake” document forgery scandal, conspiracy
to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in
responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc.,
which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the
Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have
become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
------------------------
About the author: Philadelphia journalist Dave Lindorff is co-author, with
Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for
Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
due out in paperback later this month).
His work is available at This Can't Be Happening
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.gif)
