Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment

[KNOWTHIS]

Kucinich Introduces 35 Articles of Impeachment Against Bush

www.democrats.com/kucinich-introduces-35-articles-of-impeachment-against-george-w-bush

History is in the making as I type: Rep. Dennis Kucinich has taken to the floor of the House and has begun reading 35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

At last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can be sure Kucinich will come under furious attack by the White House, the Republican Party, the Corporate Media, and even Bush Democrats. So let's inundate Congress with emails and calls showing our full support for Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment!

www.democrats.com/35-articles-of-impeachment

Click "read more" for our press release:

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."

###

More details coming later tonight!

Action in the House coming later this week!

Good websites to watch for updates and actions:
kucinich.us
democrats.com
afterdowningstreet.org

Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream . . .

[KNOWTHIS]

www.911blogger.com/node/16048

Article XXXIII

REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 911

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, failed in his Constitutional duties to take proper steps to protect the nation prior to September 11, 2001.

The White House's top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, has testified that from the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency until September 11, 2001, Clarke attempted unsuccessfully to persuade President Bush to take steps to protect the nation against terrorism. Clarke sent a memorandum to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on January 24, 2001, "urgently" but unsuccessfully requesting "a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack."

In April 2001, Clarke was finally granted a meeting, but only with second-in-command department representatives, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who made light of Clarke's concerns.

Clarke confirms that in June, July, and August, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the president in daily briefings of unprecedented indications that a major al Qaeda attack was going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. Yet, Clarke was still unable to convene a cabinet-level meeting to address the issue.

Condoleezza Rice has testified that George Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn him that a major al-Qaeda attack was going to take place, and that in response the president did not convene any meetings of top officials. At such meetings, the FBI could have shared information on possible terrorists enrolled at flight schools. Among the many preventive steps that could have been taken, the Federal Aviation Administration, airlines, and airports might have been put on full alert.

According to Condoleezza Rice, the first and only cabinet-level meeting prior to 9/11 to discuss the threat of terrorist attacks took place on September 4, 2001, one week before the attacks in New York and Washington.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush was presented a President's Daily Brief (PDB) article titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The lead sentence of that PDB article indicated that Bin Laden and his followers wanted to "follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America.'" The article warned: "Al-Qa'ida members—including some who are US citizens— have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks."

The article cited a "more sensational threat reporting that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft," but indicated that the CIA had not been able to corroborate such reporting. The PDB item included information from the FBI indicating "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The article also noted that the CIA and FBI were investigating "a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."

The president spent the rest of August 6, and almost all the rest of August 2001 on vacation. There is no evidence that he called any meetings of his advisers to discuss this alarming report. When the title and substance of this PDB article were later reported in the press, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice began a sustained campaign to play down its significance, until the actual text was eventually released by the White House.

New York Times writer Douglas Jehl, put it this way: "In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later."

Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the joint congressional committee investigating the performance of the US intelligence community before September 11, 2001, reported in mid-September 2002 that intelligence reports a year earlier "reiterated a consistent and constant theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States."

That joint inquiry revealed that just two months before September 11, an intelligence briefing for "senior government officials" predicted a terrorist attack with these words: "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."

Given the White House's insistence on secrecy with regard to what intelligence was given to President Bush, the joint-inquiry report does not divulge whether he took part in that briefing. Even if he did not, it strains credulity to suppose that those "senior government officials" would have kept its alarming substance from the president.

Again, there is no evidence that the president held any meetings or took any action to deal with the threats of such attacks.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article XXXIV
OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, obstructed investigations into the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all proposals that the circumstances of the attack be addressed. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to renege on his public promise on September 23 that a "White Paper" would be issued to explain the circumstances. Less than two weeks after that promise, Powell apologized for his "unfortunate choice of words," and explained that Americans would have to rely on "information coming out in the press and in other ways."

On Sept. 26, 2001, President Bush drove to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia, stood with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and said: "My report to the nation is, we've got the best intelligence we can possibly have thanks to the men and women of the C.I.A." George Tenet subsequently and falsely claimed not to have visited the president personally between the start of Bush's long Crawford vacation and September 11, 2001.

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet answered a question from Commission member Timothy Roemer by referring to the president's vacation (July 29-August 30) in Crawford and insisting that he did not see the president at all in August 2001. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied, explaining that for much of August he too was "on leave." An Agency spokesman called reporters that same evening to say Tenet had misspoken, and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17 and 31. The spokesman explained that the second briefing took place after the president had returned to Washington, and played down the first one, in Crawford, as uneventful.

In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet, refers to what is almost certainly his August 17 visit to Crawford as a follow-up to the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" article in the CIA prepared President's Daily Brief of August 6. That briefing was immortalized in a Time Magazine photo capturing Harriet Myers holding the PDB open for the president, as two CIA officers sit by. It is the same briefing to which the president reportedly reacted by telling the CIA briefer, "All right, you've covered your ass now." (Ron Suskind, The One-Percent Doctrine, p. 2, 2006). In At the Center of the Storm, Tenet writes: "A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure that the president stayed current on events."

A White House press release suggests Tenet was also there a week later, on August 24. According to the August 25, 2001, release, President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to Crawford on August 25, told them: "George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."

In early February, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that if Congress went ahead with an investigation, administration officials might not show up to testify. As pressure grew for an investigation, the president and vice president agreed to the establishment of a congressional joint committee to conduct a "Joint Inquiry." Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the Inquiry, opened the Joint Inquiry's final public hearing in mid-September 2002 with the following disclaimer: "I need to report that, according to the White House and the Director of Central Intelligence, the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this inquiry remains classified, even when the substance of the intelligence information has been declassified."

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was created on November 27, 2002, following the passage of congressional legislation signed into law by President Bush. The President was asked to testify before the Commission. He refused to testify except for one hour in private with only two Commission members, with no oath administered, with no recording or note taking, and with the Vice President at his side. Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton has written that he believes the commission was set up to fail, was underfunded, was rushed, and did not receive proper cooperation and access to information.

A December 2007 review of classified documents by former members of the Commission found that the commission had made repeated and detailed requests to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and had been told falsely by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had "produced or made available for review" everything that had been requested.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article XXXV
ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 911 FIRST RESPONDERS

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, recklessly endangered the health of first responders, residents, and workers at and near the former location of the World Trade Center in New York City.

The Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) August 21, 2003, report numbered 2003-P-00012 and entitled "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse:

Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement," includes the following findings:

"[W]hen EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

"As a result of the White House CEQ's influence, guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the potential health effects from WTC debris were not included in EPA- issued press releases. In addition, based on CEQ's influence, reassuring information was added to at least one press release and cautionary information was deleted from EPA's draft version of that press release. . . . The White House's role in EPA's public communications about WTC environmental conditions was described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy Administrator's Chief of Staff to senior EPA officials:

"'All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC [National Security Council] before they are released.'

"According to the EPA Chief of Staff, one particular CEQ official was designated to work with EPA to ensure that clearance was obtained through NSC. The Associate Administrator for the EPA Office of Communications, Education, and Media Relations (OCEMR) said that no press release could be issued for a 3- to 4-week period after September 11 without approval from the CEQ contact."

Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on EPA meetings with the White House has said in an interview that the White House played a coordinating role. The National Security Council played the key role, filtering incoming data on ground zero air and water, Horinko said: "I think that the thinking was, these are experts in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), so they should have the coordinating role."

In the cleanup of the Pentagon following September 11, 2001, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws were enforced, and no workers became ill. At the World Trade Center site, the same laws were not enforced.

In the years since the release of the EPA Inspector General's above-cited report, the Bush Administration has still not effected a clean-up of the indoor air in apartments and workspaces near the site.

Screenings conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center and released in the September 10, 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) of the federal Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), produced the following results:

"Both upper and lower respiratory problems and mental health difficulties are widespread among rescue and recovery workers who dug through the ruins of the World Trade Center in the days following its destruction in the attack of September 11, 2001.

"An analysis of the screenings of 1,138 workers and volunteers who responded to the World Trade Center disaster found that nearly three-quarters of them experienced new or worsened upper respiratory problems at some point while working at Ground Zero. And half of those examined had upper and/or lower respiratory symptoms that persisted up to the time of their examinations, an average of eight months after their WTC efforts ended."

A larger study released in 2006 found that roughly 70 percent of nearly 10,000 workers tested at Mount Sinai from 2002 to 2004 reported that they had new or substantially worsened respiratory problems while or after working at ground zero. This study showed that many of the respiratory ailments, including sinusitis and asthma, and gastrointestinal problems related to them, initially reported by ground zero workers persisted or grew worse over time. Most of the ground zero workers in the study who reported trouble breathing while working there were still having those problems two and a half years later, an indication of chronic illness unlikely to improve over time.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[Swamp Gas]

I hope this sticks before either:

1) Bush declares Martial Law

or

2) Bush attacks Iran


baltimorechronicle.com/2008/061008Various.shtml


Rep. Kucinich Files 35 Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush

SOURCE: Various

"Congressman Kucinich's initiation of this process is neither fanciful nor futile, neither vengeful nor vindictive; it is the sober fulfillment of his sworn duty as a Congressman to follow the law....It is, quite simply, an act of patriotism."

On Monday, June 9, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. The resolution lists 35 separate Articles of Impeachment.

Documentation to support each of these Articles is expected to be posted on the Congressman's web site today (Tuesday, June 10).

Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor and author of United States v. George W. Bush et. al., made this statement when Kuchinich's Articles of Impeachment were introduced in the House of Representatives:

"More than two centuries ago, the Founders of this country set forth a procedure for Congress to follow in the event of grave abuse of power by the Chief Executive. That process is impeachment. In the face of the monumental deceit and disregard for the Constitution that we have witnessed on the part of the President over the past seven years, Congressman Kucinich's initiation of this process is neither fanciful nor futile, neither vengeful nor vindictive; it is the sober fulfillment of his sworn duty as a Congressman to follow the law without regard to personal consequence and misguided political stratagem. It is, quite simply, an act of patriotism."

Following is a summary of the allegations against President Bush that are included in Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment:

Article I: Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

Article II: Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

Article III: Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV: Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V: Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI: Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article VII: Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII: Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

Article IX: Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X: Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI: Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII: Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources

Article XIIII: Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV: Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV: Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI: Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII: Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII: Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX: Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX: Imprisoning Children

Article XXI: Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII: Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII: Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV: Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV: Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI: Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII: Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII: Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX: Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX: Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI: Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII: Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII: Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911

Article XXXIV: Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV: Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

[KNOWTHIS]

Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said it best tonight on Olbermann. The system has failed us. The democrats can’t take a single step without tripping over impeachable offenses committed by Bush and yet there will be virtually no support of Kucinich. Cindy Sheehan would do what Nancy Pelosi refuses to do. If you're Bush, you might as well declare yourself invincible. It's a sad day for the country and our constitution.

[KNOWTHIS]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25098178/

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.

TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.

But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.

OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably

lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just

a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?

TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.

What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.

And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.

But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.

OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.

Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.

TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.

The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.

And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.

OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?

TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.

One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.

What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.

OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida today is signing on as a co-sponsor of the Kucinich impeachment resolution. Other than that support, and in volume of mainstream media coverage today, Mr. Kucinich heard crickets.

For more on the politics and the practicalities, let‘s turn to our own Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek.”

Howard, good evening.

HOWARD FINEMAN, MNSBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I‘m tempted to say—chirp, chirp.

OLBERMANN: Well—and to that point, this tree, did it fall in the forest and nobody was around to hear it?

FINEMAN: Well, they‘re reading a whole darn thing again tonight, you know, under the rules, and they‘re going to have a vote. But in the exercise of due diligence, I talked to key people on the Hill on the Democratic side today, House and Senate, checked in with David Axelrod, Barack Obama‘s campaign manager.

And even though Bob Wexler of Florida is a big Obama guy, the Obama campaign wants absolutely nothing to do with this. And neither Nancy Pelosi on the House side or Harry Reid on the Senate side has changed their mind. They don‘t want to have anything to do with it, either. So, the bill will be read. It will be dually consigned to the judiciary committee where it will never be heard from again.

OLBERMANN: All right. But, assess what this argument—we all know that this would be expected to backfire on the Democrats in the 2008 election, could cost them the House, could cost them the Senate, could cost them the presidency. Is that - what is the substance to that if this had been pursued—now, it seems to me it‘s an issue of time—but if this had been pursued a year ago, what was the practical expectation by the Democrats of what would happen if they impeach President Bush?

FINEMAN: Well, they have not wanted to get anywhere near it. And now, the reasons are that they want to focus on the economy. That‘s what the Democrats are geared up to do as they try to attack John McCain and the Republicans in Congress and in the statehouses.

Obama doesn‘t want anything to do with it because he is running to the middle. And there are some Republicans that he wants to try to get, who may still like George Bush and who wouldn‘t want to see George Bush impeached. He can let somebody—Obama can let somebody like Wexler run wild on it if he wants to, they‘re going to have anything to do it.

Had they tried it a year ago or two, I don‘t know. I think Jonathan Turley who‘s a Constitution man also knows his politics—which is the Democrats prefer to have George Bush out there as somebody they can attack politically on the campaign trail, rather than turn it into a legal matter, and get it gummed up in the works of the Constitution. They‘re looking at it purely politically. George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. They‘d rather leave him there than turn him into a defendant in the dark, legally.

OLBERMANN: Well, obviously, that ignores the argument that the country could go to hell in a hand basket before his term ends, and perhaps already has.

But one political history, recent history, when President Clinton was impeached, the Republicans not only hobbled the sitting president, but they seemed to have succeeded in putting the Democrats on the defensive to the point that they would not even consider hearings on such a thing now, in the face of, at least, large volumes of evidence if not overwhelming evidence.

It‘s almost as if the impeachment of Clinton, if you want to be utterly conspiratory (ph) on - I‘m not saying I‘m doing it this way - but see, it reads as history, reading backwards, as if the Clinton impeachment was arranged to preclude the impeachment of the, you know, completely malevolent Republican president who followed him.

Did the Republicans achieve pretty much everything they‘ve wanted, they could have dreamt of or maybe something couldn‘t have dreamt of by impeaching Bill Clinton?

FINEMAN: Yes. Well, I don‘t even think the most conspiratorial of them could have thought this scenario up. But it is true that we have about one impeachment in this (ph) generation, it seems.

And even though I have heard as I travel around the country, people do bring this up. They do bring impeachment up. And they‘re not all wild-eyed liberals. A lot of constitutionalist conservatives are very upset with what President Bush has done.

But I don‘t think we have the political will for it right now. And also, it‘s complicated by war. Call it what you will, the long twilight struggle that we are said to be in the middle of, makes it difficult for the Democrats to risk, because they will have a president who would wrap himself in what‘s left of the flag of commander-in-chief.

And at a time when the Democrats have a nominee who‘s got to show that he‘s tough, I don‘t think they want to take that on even if they have a legal case.

OLBERMANN: Howard Fineman of “Newsweek” and MSNBC—great thanks as always, Howard.

FINEMAN: Thank you, Keith.

[KNOWTHIS]

See video here:

Democrats are protecting Bush from impeachment: scholar ; Constitutional scholar on impeachment: 'It's time to pony up'

rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_on_impeachment_Its_time_to_0610.html

[KNOWTHIS]

rawstory.com/news/2008/OReilly_Kucinich_spar_over_impeachment_unite_0612.html

O'Reilly, Kucinich spar over impeachment, unite on gas prices

[KNOWTHIS]

www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2008/06/americans-want-bush-impeached-far-more.html

Americans Want Bush Impeached Far More Than They Ever Supported Clinton Impeachment

When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on Monday, he drew ridicule from Republicans, apathy from most Democrats, and silence from the mainstream media.

However, polls show that Americans want Bush impeached far more than they ever supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 1998, when the media was in a feeding frenzy over Clinton's impeachment, polls consistently showed that Americans opposed impeachment. Not only that, but Clinton's approval rating actually increased during the impeachment proceedings. For example, on Dec. 20, 1998, Clinton's approval rating climbed to 73 percent (a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan ever enjoyed).

An Aug. 17, 1998 ABC News poll is typical of that era. That poll showed that American opposed impeachment by a wide margin of 69 percent to 25 percent.

Indeed, that same poll showed that Americans were sick and tired of the media hoopla over Monica Lewinsky. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Americans said the investigation of Clinton should end immediately.

By contrast, today Americans do support the impeachment of George W. Bush. And yet the mainstream media ignores this story and most Democrats refuse to take any action.

For example, an ongoing MSNBC "Live Vote" online poll shows that 89 percent of Americans support Bush's impeachment. The poll has drawn over 686,000 responses thus far.

While other polls show lower numbers in favor of impeachment, it's still clear that far more Americans want Bush impeached than they ever supported Clinton's impeachment.

And unlike Clinton (who enjoyed high approval ratings during his impeachment) Bush is clearly despised by most Americans these days. Bush's approval rating remains in the toilet (falling to as low as 25 percent in a recent CBS poll).

[KNOWTHIS]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2WIdiMyXw&feature=PlayList&p=67EA54DBA77EA3D4&index=0&playnext=1

Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings!

[Swamp Gas]

The only thing I can think of is that Democrats will be held complicant in the crimes of the Bush Administration before the Hague. I think the Powers want to gain complete control over the internet to control and cleanse data flow. If they control media, books, and the internet, then they can rewrite history showing GW Bush as a National Hero. This is like Minority Report, Equilibrium, 1984, Brave New World, and so many other prediction nooks and movies. The only thing we can do is keeping speaking out, and keeping the Non-Linear lifestyle preserved and evolving.