Impeachment?

[TG]

I had been against impeachment because I thought it would be too divisive, and I thought it would be a bad political move on the part of Democrats.

But I just listened to 2 constitutional scholars on Bill Moyer's Journal who advocated it for persuasive reasons. Enough for me to reopen the issue.

The reason they found it imperative was the precedents set by Bush and co. Would you like it if Hillary Clinton or Mitt Rommey could open anyone's emails without a court order?
What if another country did what we do? What if Putin grabbed one of our citizens in a foreign country, whisked him out of the country on some secret flight, and deposited him in one of their satellites for questioning? Not even Nixon tried to shield Howard Dean from Congressional committees investigating Watergate. But Bush is claiming it for his people. They argued he was claiming freedom from Congressional oversight.

They argued that Pelosi is not doing her job for political reasons. Afraid of the political backlash of impeachment, she is abandoning congressional oversight and the traditional checks and balances that has kept this country free of power hungry Executives for it's history. That both houses are filled with politicians more interested in getting re-elected than in defending the Constitution. Also, that the press rolled over for Bush, and abandoned their usual role as watchdog.

Lastly, they said the people are ahead of the Congress on this. That 47%(?) favor the impeachment of Bush, and 54% or 56% favor the impeachment of Chenney. That they understand the torture of prisoners is wrong, and the Congress isn't doing what the people what it to do.

I think that the torture being done is illegal, and it bothers me that prisoners are held indefinitely without benefit of counsel. Now I'm beginning to think I'm just lazy not to standing up to defend the Constitution. Because I am proud of the Constitution that we have, and the wisdom of the men who made it.
TG

[John56{vg}]

My friend TG.

I think it must be done. Bush and Company are bravely bold with their crimes (and they ARE crimes against the constitution).

I was telling a very dear friend of mine today, Clinton was impeached for screwing someone else, Bush and Cheney (Annd both of them need to be impeached) have screwed the country and Pelosi says that impeachment is off the table. This is so dangerous to America's ideal.

And Rhabbi, I respect you, but to say it has always gone on is condoning the crimes. And I hope I never become that Cynical. And this time there is a dire threat to the Constitution and to the very fabric of what it means to be an American.

If we remain complacent we could lose our country, I truly believe this. I, for one, want my country back.

My congresswoman Linda Sanchez, read into the record a motion condemning Harriet Mier's failure to show up for the U.S. Attorney's scandal as unlawful even under Presidential privilege. The Bushies AND the Republicans have been so bold about their contempt for the Constitution, it is time to come back hard against them

The Dems need to fight back, now and relentlessly to keep our freedoms.

(Okay I will get off my soapbox now)

[_ID_]

Impeachment of one would be ok, but you have to choose. We can't impeach both, well we could, but think about who's next in line.

[gloombunny]

Impeachment of one would be ok, but you have to choose. We can't impeach both, well we could, but think about who's next in line.
No matter how long I think about it, President Pelosi still sounds much better than President Bush or President Cheney.

[TG]

IDCREWDawg,
Precedent is how Congress and the Executive branch decide upon their role when they interact with each other, assuming things aren't so outrageous as to be unconstitutional. Look at the bag of tricks these guys are leaving for the next batch of pols who'll occupy the office.

We need checks and balances in government to protect us when we get some greedy nut case in office. And basically no humble guy is going to be running for the office. To run for the office almost guarantees the man or women (it feels strange to write that) is going to be egotistical and greedy.

I don't think it's wise to let what these 2 guys do stand as precedent. Cheney is worse than Bush.

Do you really think President Pelosi is going to be worse than President Cheney? And I think about President Bush everyday. When I fill up the gas tank. When I sweat in 90 degree plus weather. When I turn on the news. Latest Intelligence estimate saids Al Qiuda (sp?) is as strong as pre 9/11. So what have we been doing that past few years with our money and serviceman's lives?

Pelosi may be a political animal, but she out performed the Repub. congress that preceded her. And she's out performing Ried. At least you can say she is minimally competent in her job. And that would be a refreshing improvement.
TG

[thezigg]

I thought alot before jumping in here because I know at this websight I will be outnumbered by a ton but I dont think Bush should be impeached. I think that sends a horrible signal to the terrorist in the middle east. Im not sure I think anything he has done has warranted his getting tossed. Opening emails, listening to phone conversations, throwing suspected bad guys in jail, and just being a general arrogent ahole isnt grounds to throw the guy out. It would appear to alot of people that democrats were playing tit for tat. You impeached our guy (Clinton) so were going after yours. The next president would probably get tossed for some reason as well.

[Sir_Russell]

that may be true but breaking the laws of the land is so are actions harmful to the safety of the US. What was a small group of people has now grown to a huge part of the world population that wants to do grave harm to us.

Impeachment will bring out in the open their acts and give warning to future power mad persons in the presidency that it isn't going to be allowed.

Clinton's actions were not okay I suppose but to impeach over that and ignore this behavior is criminal.

[gagged_Louise]

This video is the best summing up I've seen in a long time of why Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. merit to be called liars:

http://tinyurl.com/2vuvda

Though the call to arms against Iran has been a little less up front, it's depressingly logical that when an Intelligence report undercuts the claim that Iran is for sure preparing to develop nukes, Bush will just wave it aside with "Well, it doesn't prove anything...Even if they stopped their program in 2003 they may have started another program to build a nucular bomb"
(if that were true, what would it say about the overall standard of US intelligence on the Middle East??)

[Guest 91108]

that may be true but breaking the laws of the land is so are actions harmful to the safety of the US. What was a small group of people has now grown to a huge part of the world population that wants to do grave harm to us.

Impeachment will bring out in the open their acts and give warning to future power mad persons in the presidency that it isn't going to be allowed.

Clinton's actions were not okay I suppose but to impeach over that and ignore this behavior is criminal.

I totally agree with this post.
Bush should be impeached and all his staff should be removed when he is.
And Yes, it should be a sign to all future politicans and leaders that this won't be stood for again.
I'd go even further.. any law and executive order put in during an impeached president's term(s) of service should be made null and void instantly afterwards.

[Ozme52]

That won't happen. You want to undue the last 7 years of budgets and legislation? Most of which happens regardless of the executive office? Does that mean we only get the laws he vetoed? It's an untenable concept.

And as far as the actions you suggest upon impeachment... let's not forget impeachment is the term for bringing charges, like an arraignment, to someone in office, then trying them, and then if found guilty, of removing them from office.

And for the executive office, I believe the evidence is brought before the senate and voted on by the senate. So regardless, the vote will be as much political as based on evidence.

And make no mistake, a lot of democrats will be loathe to vote for the removal of a sitting president. Just the same as the republican majority did not remove Clinton and as the republican majority did not remove Andrew Johnson.

Who do you impeach first? Bush or Cheny? Remove Bush and Cheny becomes president. You want that? Cheny first? Bush selects a new vice president. Imagine that... he picks one of the current candidates and gives him the boost an incumbent always gets... It would virtually guarantee him the nomination.

[Guest 91108]

I was thinking only of legislation.. seems like most of the legislation that has passed would be considered .
Reason is.. if the impeachable president is removed.. then probably many laws were passed concerning the issues which caused the impeachment.
I can think of several laws that could be removed.
The Patriot Act being a major one, same sex marriage, many others.
They will probably be reconsidered anyways before long.

[gagged_Louise]

I wouldn't really agree with Oz that an impeachmet of Cheneny, followed by Bush selecting one of the main contenders for the November '08 Presidential Elections as the new Vice President, would set that guy on a downhill slope to victory. Bush is so divisive that some of the Republican candidates wouldn't be very happy to be that overtly associated with him in the public eye, would they? But yes, the election and the end of Bush's term in office being so close, an impeachment process is very unlikely at this point.

[mkemse]

That won't happen. You want to undue the last 7 years of budgets and legislation? Most of which happens regardless of the executive office? Does that mean we only get the laws he vetoed? It's an untenable concept.

And as far as the actions you suggest upon impeachment... let's not forget impeachment is the term for bringing charges, like an arraignment, to someone in office, then trying them, and then if found guilty, of removing them from office.

And for the executive office, I believe the evidence is brought before the senate and voted on by the senate. So regardless, the vote will be as much political as based on evidence.

And make no mistake, a lot of democrats will be loathe to vote for the removal of a sitting president. Just the same as the republican majority did not remove Clinton and as the republican majority did not remove Andrew Johnson.

Who do you impeach first? Bush or Cheny? Remove Bush and Cheny becomes president. You want that? Cheny first? Bush selects a new vice president. Imagine that... he picks one of the current candidates and gives him the boost an incumbent always gets... It would virtually guarantee him the nomination.


I would 100% Impeach Cheney Fiirst, even the thought of him taking over for Bush is far worse then any reality of Cheney Running things, as bad as things are NOW, I would not even want to think what the next 13 months would be like with Cheney in charge (As if he isn't already anyway)

[Ozme52]

I was thinking only of legislation.. seems like most of the legislation that has passed would be considered .
Reason is.. if the impeachable president is removed.. then probably many laws were passed concerning the issues which caused the impeachment.
I can think of several laws that could be removed.
The Patriot Act being a major one, same sex marriage, many others.
They will probably be reconsidered anyways before long.


The president doesn't, per se, legislate anything. He only enacts/executes legislation that is given to him by the Senate and the House.

Let's take the Patriot Act. So what you're suggesting is that if the president is impeached, then you also have to remove the Senators and Congressmen who co-introduced that legislation? How about everyone who happened to agree and voted for the legislation?

[Ozme52]

I wouldn't really agree with Oz that an impeachmet of Cheneny, followed by Bush selecting one of the main contenders for the November '08 Presidential Elections as the new Vice President, would set that guy on a downhill slope to victory. Bush is so divisive that some of the Republican candidates wouldn't be very happy to be that overtly associated with him in the public eye, would they? But yes, the election and the end of Bush's term in office being so close, an impeachment process is very unlikely at this point.

With a year to go... I think a sharp candidate might just take advantage. And if Bush were to be successfully impeached and removed from office thereafter... then yeah... it might be worth the possible downside of that association

Regardless, it's all apple pie in the sky and will not likely happen. Not with barely a year left to go.

[Ozme52]

I would 100% Impeach Cheney Fiirst, even the thought of him taking over for Bush is far worse then any reality of Cheney Running things, as bad as things are NOW, I would not even want to think what the next 13 months would be like with Cheney in charge (As if he isn't already anyway)

Nah... he's already withdrawing to a certain extent from the limelight. At least so it appears to me. He'll reel in the riches when he gets put on the boards of the numerous corporations that benefitted from his past 'political' decisions.

[mkemse]

Nah... he's already withdrawing to a certain extent from the limelight. At least so it appears to me. He'll reel in the riches when he gets put on the boards of the numerous corporations that benefitted from his past 'political' decisions.


Ture but he has been reeling in the Riches for years with Haliburton, but what's anther $50 biloin among Corporate friends
Yes he has stepped back but I firmly believe altho he is not in the "Limelight" now as much as say 2-3 years ago, he is still very much ther

BTW, anywone want to go hunting with him??

[Guest 91108]

I think it's easily understood what I meant without going into the details of it.

[Sir_Russell]

I think that not going for impeachment of both of them shows that the country has little courage and even less common sense. When one gets away with this level of criminal activity without any cost it only means the next one can push further till we all have nothing but tv fodder

[mkemse]

Both Bush and Chenney have commited more impeachable offense's then there is space to list on this web site, yes both should be impeached the only problem now is with less then 12 month left in their terms the proceeding would run well pastthe end of their terms which would be a wate of tax payers money, they should have been impeached 3 or 4 years ago, but you also have to remember that impeachment does NOT meran removal from office, only that they stand trial on their charges and then congress votes on it, the remaining time factor forthem in offiice woul not justify the expense or time at this point

[Sir_Russell]

but history and the future both should demand it. Again since we are acting like nothing wrong happened the bar has been pushed in the wrong direction. The cost of not making them stand for their crimes is way more then the cost of the effort.

[mkemse]

but history and the future both should demand it. Again since we are acting like nothing wrong happened the bar has been pushed in the wrong direction. The cost of not making them stand for their crimes is way more then the cost of the effort.

Bush and Chenney do need to be held accountable for ll there illegal acition, nobody but no body is above the law as Nixon leanred years ago before he resigned, and i am sure he did not resign to leave office early to get a sun tan

[Ozme52]

I think it's easily understood what I meant without going into the details of it.


Yeah, you want to heap the blame on the one guy regardless of who was involved.

I'm no fan of Bush but unless you just like the rhetoric, one must consider the consequences of taking a stand on such broad statements.

[Ozme52]

I think that not going for impeachment of both of them shows that the country has little courage and even less common sense. When one gets away with this level of criminal activity without any cost it only means the next one can push further till we all have nothing but tv fodder

We may believe that the Executive branch acted criminally but until the Judicial branch declares that the Executive branch acted outside of the intent of what the Legislative branch "wrote into law" any attempt to impeach is fruitless.

[Ozme52]

Both Bush and Chenney have commited more impeachable offense's then there is space to list on this web site, yes both should be impeached the only problem now is with less then 12 month left in their terms the proceeding would run well pastthe end of their terms which would be a wate of tax payers money, they should have been impeached 3 or 4 years ago, but you also have to remember that impeachment does NOT meran removal from office, only that they stand trial on their charges and then congress votes on it, the remaining time factor forthem in offiice woul not justify the expense or time at this point

For any "offense" you actually list... I have no doubt there is legislation that permits it... It all depends on how tightly written the legislation is written, how that has been interpretted, and how the Judicial branch views that interpretation.

I don't disagree that much of what this administration has done is reprehesible... but not necessarily criminal. Or would you suspend our rules and laws in this case? Oh wait... that's what you would like to claim is their crime.

[Ozme52]

Bush and Chenney do need to be held accountable for ll there illegal acition, nobody but no body is above the law as Nixon leanred years ago before he resigned, and i am sure he did not resign to leave office early to get a sun tan

omg. what a shallow understanding of the time you seem to have.

Exactly what do you think Nixon did that was illegal?


(I've already discussed above that you are on shaky ground trying to prove criminal activity regarding Bush or Cheney... certainly without a judicial branch ruling on their interpretation of legislative intent...)

[mkemse]

let's .see, Ignore and Take No responisbility ofr HIS owen people breaking into watergate, these men worked for him, if he wasnot aware of what was going on it was his jobas President, A President had to know at alltimes what his peole aredoing and if he doesn't know or care he as our leader is utimately responsible, A Companies CEO is responisable for ANYTHING that goes rong in his company, if he did not know it was going wrong he needs people to advice him of it so he can take corrective acation that iswhy he runs the company
Nixon broke more laws then another other Prsiedent in modern histriy and place himself above the law, way to manythings to list in a forum here it woyl take pages

1. John Erhlickman, Jogn Dean, G Gordon Liddy JohnMitchell broke EVER law underthe sun Prseident Nixon was there boss, is was his job to knowwhat they weredoing or get peoe into his office that did

2, Watergate

3. The audio Tapes that havethe famous 18 minutes of silence it in

4. Illegal Wire taping

ect i am not goin to go on and on, but the Prsiednt, any pPresiednt is responisble for the ACt of those who work for him, sych as DEan, Lidddy ect he is utilmately rsponisble for there actions and he wasten and all did jail time excpet Nixon for their crimes

and the only reason Nixon wasnot impeached is Ford Pardoned him for all him crimes

[mkemse]

omg. what a shallow understanding of the time you seem to have.

Exactly what do you think Nixon did that was illegal?


(I've already discussed above that you are on shaky ground trying to prove criminal activity regarding Bush or Cheney... certainly without a judicial branch ruling on their interpretation of legislative intent...)


These are the reason for why Nixon Should have been impeached, to bad he wasn't but Bush has been far worse, these are th crimes he wascharged with, Nixon that is


RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.




ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to 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 consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, 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.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




ARTICLE 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
2. He misued the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, 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.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




ARTICLE 3

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to 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 to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions

demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, 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.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




The following Articles were rejected by the House Judiciary Committee

Article IV

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did receive emoluments from the United States in excess of the compensation provided by law pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and did willfully attempt to evade the payment of a portion of Federal income taxes due and owing by him for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, in that:

(1) He, during the period for which he has been elected President, unlawfully received compensation in the form of government expenditures at and on his privately-owned properties located in or near San Clemente, California, and Key Biscayne, Florida.

(2) He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000.

In all of this 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.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




Article V

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, on and subsequent to March 17, 1969, authorized, ordered, and ratified the concealment from the Congress of false and misleading statements concerning the existence, scope and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war, to make appropriations and to raise and support armies, and by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.




Specification of Charges (Bill of Particulars)

Supporting All Articles

1. Conspiracy. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, John Mitchell, Herbert Kalmbach, and Maurice Stans, in concert with and abetted by others, conspired together to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to commit various crimes against numerous citizens of the United States who opposed the policies of Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon and his coconspirators thereby conspired to commit burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; violated federal statutes making it a crime to wiretap, section 2510 et seq. of the United States Criminal Code (Title 18, U.S.C.); conspired to deprive citizens of civil rights in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code; conspired to violate other federal statutes (e.g., the wiretap statute) in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code; violated the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, article 11, section 3; violated the First amendment rights of persons to freedom of speech, and violated the Fourth amendment rights of persons to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 1, President Nixon and his co-conspirators:

2. Illegal Wiretaps. Caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of seventeen persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.

3. Conspiracy to Suppress Free Speech. Caused harassment, by means of tax audits and other acts by the Internal Revenue Service, of named persons designated as political "enemies" of President Nixon for the purpose of inhibiting or preventing their exercise of First amendment rights, in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code.

4. Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Other Crimes. Caused the creation and adoption of a so called "domestic intelligence plan" for securing information about American citizens, under which plan it was intended to commit unlawful acts of burglary, wiretapping, bugging and the opening of mail; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code.

5. Burglary. Caused the creation of a "special investigations unit," called "the Plumbers," in which were employed, inter alia, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, which carried out a burglary on September 3,1972 of the office of Lewis Fielding, M.D. in Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; in violation of sections 182.1, 459, 6020(j) and 647(a) of the California Penal Code and section 241 of the Criminal Code.

6. Obstruction of Justice. Attempted to influence a United States District Court Judge, Hon. W. Matthew Byrne, in a matter then pending trial before him, to wit, the prosecution by the United States of Daniel Ellsberg for violation of the espionage statutes, by suggesting to Judge Byrne that he might be appointed as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; in violation of sections 371 and 1503 of the Criminal Code.

7. Conspiracy to Commit Crimes to Influence the Election. Adopted a plan or scheme proposed by G. Gordon Liddy to employ various unlawful devices, including wiretaps, illegal entries, assault and battery and prostitution, to influence the results of the 1972 Presidential election in a manner favorable to Richard M. Nixon; in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code.

8. Burglary. Caused the commission of two acts of burglary on May 27,1972 and June 17, 1972, by the "Plumbers" into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office Building, 2500 Virginia Avenue, N.W., in the District of Columbia, in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; the placing therein of a telephone wiretap in violation of section 2510 of the Criminal Code; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code.

9. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury. Concealed the complicity of high officials of the White House staff and of the campaign Committee to Re-Elect the President in the acts specified in Counts 7 and 8, for the purpose of defeating and preventing criminal prosecutions by the United States, by (a) destroying documentary evidence, (b) concealing the existence of documentary evidence, (c) promising executive clemency and paying money and causing money to be paid to G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales, Frank Sturgis, James McCord and Eugenio Martinez to induce them, and which did induce them, to plead guilty to charges of burglary and to withhold testimony and to refuse to testify before a grand jury and at trial, (d) suborning perjury by Jeb S. Magruder at the trial of Liddy, et al.; in violation of sections 371,1503,1510,1621 and 1622 of the Criminal Code.

10. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, Herbert Kalmbach and Maurice Stans, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, conspired to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to obtain money to spend for and- in support of the reelection of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States in 1972, in which they employed various unlawful means, to wit, obtaining campaign contributions from corporations and foreign nationals in violation of sections 610 and 613 of the Criminal Code, and soliciting and/or obtaining campaign contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations and foreign nationals in exchange for promises of governmental benefit and/or the withholding of governmental sanctions and/or the cessation of governmental law enforcement action; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201,241,371,1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 10, President Nixon and his co-conspirators:

11. Illegal Campaign Contributions from Corporations. Solicited and obtained before April 7, 1972, campaign contributions from seven corporations, in violation of sections 371 and 610 of the Criminal Code, and by means of express or implied promises of governmental benefits and/or threats of the withholding of governmental benefits; in violation of sections 201, 371 and 872

of the Criminal Code.

12. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited a contribution of $200,000 to $400,000 and obtained a contribution of $100,000 from the ITT Corporation promised on July 21, 1971, and delivered on August 5, 1971 to support the Republican National Convention expected to be held in San Diego, California; by means of promises, express or implied, to obtain a decision by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, which decision was obtained on July 31, 1971, to accept a consent decree which permitted ITT to retain the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., which the Antitrust Division had theretofore opposed by the filing and prosecution of a civil antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 271, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

13. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained a promise of a campaign contribution of $2,000,000 for President Nixon's reelection campaign from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI), a dairy farm cooperative, in exchange for conferring on December 31, 1970, a governmental benefit on AMPI, to wit, the promulgation by President Nixon of reduced quotas for imports of dairy products; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

14. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained from three dairy producer cooperatives a promise of contributions to President Nixon's reelection campaign and obtained at least $427,500 in such contributions, from March 22, 1971, to November 6, 1972, in exchange for conferring upon the three cooperatives on March 25, 1971, a governmental benefit, to wit, an increase ordered by the

Secretary of Agriculture in the minimum price support level for dairy products for 1971-72 from $4.66 to $4.93 per 100 lbs. of fluid manufacturing grade milk; at a cost of $125 million to the Treasury of the United States and to the profit of the dairy industry of $500 to $700 million; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

15. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained from AMPI's political committee, TAPE, a contribution of $5,000, delivered on September 3, 1973, at a meeting which President Nixon attended, part of the funds obtained as specified in Count 14, expressly for the purpose of paying the costs of the "plumbers"'burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding specified in Count 8; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code.

16. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Allen, President of Gulf Resources and Chemical Co., Inc., on April 3-5, 1972, a contribution of $100,000 of corporate funds in violation of section 610 of the Criminal Code, in exchange for the cessation and withholding, on March 29, 1972, of civil enforcement action by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States Government to abate air and water pollution by Gulf Resources and Chemical Company's subsidiary Bunker Hill Company's lead and zinc smelter in Idaho; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

17. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, on April 9, 1972, from Dwayne O. Andreas, a contribution of $25,000, in exchange for conferring upon Andreas and other persons associated with him a governmental benefit, to wit, the approval by the Comptroller of the Currency of a national bank charter sought by Andreas and his associates, applied for on May 26, 1972 and approved on August 22, 1972; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201,- 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

18. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained the contributions specified in Counts 16 and 17 for the purpose, in part, of paying for the burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters specified in Count 8, in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code and 22 D.C. Code 1801.

19. Bribery, Fraud, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in April and in October, 1972, contributions totalling $25,000, from Nikos Vardinoyannis, a Greek national; in violation of Section 613 of the Criminal Code, and in exchange for conferring upon Vardinoyannis a governmental benefit, to wit, a contract for $4.7 million in U.S. government funds to supply fuel for the U.S. Sixth Fleet in Piraeus, Greece; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

20. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in August, 1972, from officers of carpet manufacturing fines, Martin B. Seretean, Eugene T. Barwick and J. C. Shaw, contributions totalling more than $200,000 in exchange for conferring upon the carpet industry governmental benefits, to wit, a meeting at the White House with Charles Colson and other government officials, including officials from the Department of Commerce, and the withholding by the Department of Commerce of action opposed by the carpet industry, to wit, the introduction of a test for flammability of carpets more stringent and of higher safety than the current test, in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

21. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in June, July and August, 1972, from Ray A. Kroc, Chairman of the Board of McDonald's, Inc., contributions of $200,000, in exchange for permission from the Price Commission, first denied on May 21, 1972, then granted on September 8, 1972, to raise the price of the McDonald's quarter

pounder cheeseburger, in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and Section 201, 372, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

22. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from the Seafarer's International Union, on November 2, 1972, a contribution of $100,000, in exchange for the conferring of a governmental benefit, to wit, the decision of the Department of Justice not to appeal dismissal of an indictment against the Union, filed on June 30, 1970,for violations of section 610 of the Criminal Code prohibiting campaign contributions by Unions; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 610, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

23. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Vesco,.on April 10, 1972, a contribution of $200,000, which was not reported to the General Accounting Office as required by law, in exchange for conferring upon Vesco governmental benefits, to wit, arranging a meeting between his attorney, Harry Sears, and federal law enforcement officials, to wit the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and promises of other benefits, to wit, that John Mitchell and Maurice Stans would use their influence to prevent law enforcement action from being taken against Vesco; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

24. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained, purportedly for the 1972 reelection campaign of President Nixon, in 1969 and 1970, contributions tatalling $100,000 from Howard Hughes, in exchange for governmental benefits, to wit, the approval in 1969 by President Nixon, pursuant to authority conferred on the President by law, of the purchase by Hughes of Air West, a CAB certificated airline with international routes; and the withdrawal in 1970 by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice of its opposition to acquisition by Hughes of a seventh gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nevada; in violation of article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

25. Receiving Money Unlawfully Obtained. By the means specified in Counts 10-24 Richard Nixon received and obtained for his own use and benefit and did have the use and benefit, for the purpose of financing his campaign for reelection as President, of moneys illegally obtained as specified in Counts 10-24 to a total amount of $1,652,500, which he knew and/or had reason to know had been unlawfully obtained; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 241, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

26. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldamn, Herbert Kalmbach, Frank DeMarco, Charles G. Rebezo and Robert Abplanalp, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, devised and carried out a plan or scheme personally to enrich President Nixon by abuse of the power and authority of his office as President; in violation of article II, sectdon I of the Constitution, sections 271, 641, 1001 and 1505 of the CriminalCode, and section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 26, the President and his co-conspirators:

27. Embezzlement, Fraud. Caused the expenditure of public funds, in the amount of more than one million dollars, for materials and labor to improve, adorn and permanently increase the value of President Nixon's privately owned real property in San Clemente, California and Key Biscayne, Florida, in excess of expenditures authorized by law to provide for the security of the President; in violation of article II, section I of the Constitution and sections 371,641 and 1505 of the Criminal Code.

28. Tax Evasion. Caused the filing of federal income tax returns on behalf of Richard M. Nixon, in which were claimed deductions from taxable income in an amount of approximated $s70,000 for purported gifts to the United States of papers of Richard M. Nixon, which deductions were known to the co-conspirators to be unallowable because the gift of papers had not been timely made and consummated; in an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes and by reason of which Richard M. Nixon reduced his personal income tax for 1969 to $792.81 and for 1970 to $878.03, and thereby received in 1970 and 1971 large refunds of withheld taxes; in violation of seetion 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code and sections 371 and 1001 of the Criminal Code.

[Ozme52]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.

[mkemse]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.

Have a great night, no point in aruging a mute issue on Nixon now, he broke more federal laws and placed himself above the law that simple he broke more laws the Carters has ***** and yes that is a very old remark, i realize that

never the less have a GREAT NIGHT:)

[mkemse]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.

read the history yourself, Haldeman, Urhlichmanm, Dean, LIddy Mitchell, ect were his responisablity, they all worked for him, directly if he did not knowwhat they were doing he was wrong for not knowing, if he did know he waswtong for allowingi t, nobody is abovethe law, nobody they broke all the laws, he wired tapped those he did not like ect ect, and no he was not impeached, he left office, he resigned in discrace before they could, and you can not impeach a President after they leave office

again have a great night

[mkemse]

Crud. my laptop froze and I had to reboot. I had a great counter-point written out...

all lost.

but the bottom line is he never underwent the process, not even the criminal proceedings after he resigned because Ford 'pardoned' him thereafter. Missed his day in court... innocent until proven guilty... and of course, maybe he was counting on that.

Regardless... mkemse, Good job finding the Articles of Impeachent, which were never ratified by the legislators, albeit probably because he resigned...

But I have to ask.... why did you include the articles and complaints rejected by the Judicial Committee? Figured no one would read this? Did you?

You weaken your credibility when you resort to quantity over quality.
I probably weaken mine by arguing with you.


If Nixon was not guilty of anything why did he resign?? Most people who are not guilty of a crme will defend themselves in court??

And He resigned in disgrace, by why rsign if he did nothing wrong??

[Ozme52]

Have a great night, no point in aruging a mute issue on Nixon now, he broke more federal laws and placed himself above the law that simple he broke more laws the Carters has ***** and yes that is a very old remark, i realize that

never the less have a GREAT NIGHT:)

If you're done arguing... BE DONE.


read the history yourself, Haldeman, Urhlichmanm, Dean, LIddy Mitchell, ect were his responisablity, they all worked for him, directly if he did not knowwhat they were doing he was wrong for not knowing, if he did know he waswtong for allowingi t, nobody is abovethe law, nobody they broke all the laws, he wired tapped those he did not like ect ect, and no he was not impeached, he left office, he resigned in discrace before they could, and you can not impeach a President after they leave office

again have a great night

Again, you repeat yourself... and this time making an argument against a point I don't contend... except to repeat, taking responsibility to try to make a corrective action (in his case not protecting the villians) and taking a jail term yourself if you were indeed unaware (still a point we'll never know about,) are two different things.


If Nixon was not guilty of anything why did he resign?? Most people who are not guilty of a crme will defend themselves in court??
And He resigned in disgrace, by why rsign if he did nothing wrong??

His stated intent was to spare the people of the USA and the office of the Presidency itself any further duress and harm. In that, he succeeded.

And once again, I'll state that while he couldn't have hoped to survive the political process of impeachment... maybe he hoped for vindication in the legal arena... and as I said... perhaps he counted on being pardoned.... But as you said, it's all in the past.

[mkemse]

If you're done arguing... BE DONE.



Again, you repeat yourself... and this time making an argument against a point I don't contend... except to repeat, taking responsibility to try to make a corrective action (in his case not protecting the villians) and taking a jail term yourself if you were indeed unaware (still a point we'll never know about,) are two different things.



His stated intent was to spare the people of the USA and the office of the Presidency itself any further duress and harm. In that, he succeeded.

And once again, I'll state that while he couldn't have hoped to survive the political process of impeachment... maybe he hoped for vindication in the legal arena... and as I said... perhaps he counted on being pardoned.... But as you said, it's all in the past.

i do not believe he reigned to save the nation, i firmly believe he residgned to save his skin an no othe reason, saving the nation for more fall out is a cope out by him, h simply did not want to be removed from offcie, if you have a job somewhere it is far easier to quit that job then to be fired or be removed
from it, so he did he removed himself before he could be removed

[Sir_Russell]

well Oz at least when your wrong your consistant about it. We spent plenty on clinton's impeachment for what now with so much more on the line its time to what play nice. I actually thought you had a better grasp of history and responsibility.

[Ozme52]

well Oz at least when your wrong your consistant about it. We spent plenty on clinton's impeachment for what now with so much more on the line its time to what play nice.

Yep. That was a waste of effort too. Clinton's impeachment was totally political.



I actually thought you had a better grasp of history and responsibility.

I don't deny that what Bush and Cheney have done is reprehensible. I HATE what they've done to our international reputation. Instead of us being the guy who watches out for injustice, we're the bully. I don't like it at all.

I'm just not sure that anything they've done could be called illegal and that's the point I'm making. You don't think if they had broken the law the Democratic majority in both houses wouldn't have acted? But regardless of criminality, it still makes good press.

My main point has been that you can't talk about things like reversing the Patriot Act... it was passed by congress, not by Bush/Cheney. He didn't go to war illegally, congress voted for it. Yes, the information was in error. Can anyone prove congress was purposely misled? NO. If you could prove it congress would have impeached immediately... and at the very least, reversed the war vote. You can only "prove" that after-the-fact, it was incredibly and stupidly wrong.

No, and on the contrary, they repeatedly vote to extend and send more troops. They certainly must have information that we don't have access to that implies it was the right thing to do.

I guess I'm trying to narrowly argue the topic. The war (and a host of related activities with regard to the Patriot Act) are way too broad to handle as a single subject. I just don't think an impeachment is going to do us any good... presuming you could even find him/them guilty of anything.

[mkemse]

Yep. That was a waste of effort too. Clinton's impeachment was totally political.




I don't deny that what Bush and Cheney have done is reprehensible. I HATE what they've done to our international reputation. Instead of us being the guy who watches out for injustice, we're the bully. I don't like it at all.

I'm just not sure that anything they've done could be called illegal and that's the point I'm making. You don't think if they had broken the law the Democratic majority in both houses wouldn't have acted? But regardless of criminality, it still makes good press.

My main point has been that you can't talk about things like reversing the Patriot Act... it was passed by congress, not by Bush/Cheney. He didn't go to war illegally, congress voted for it. Yes, the information was in error. Can anyone prove congress was purposely misled? NO. If you could prove it congress would have impeached immediately... and at the very least, reversed the war vote. You can only "prove" that after-the-fact, it was incredibly and stupidly wrong.

Yes but at thetime of the Patriot Act and Approving FUnds for Iraq everyone knows he had a blank check withthe Republican Controlled Congress, it was always rubber stamped to his satifaction, when the Repbulicans controlled both houses Bush got ANYTHING he wanted regardless of cost, when he asked forbills to be passedthere where controversal at best if not illegal, HIS Repblican Congress gave him what hewanted, Since the Democrats took oover his rubberstamd is gon,e and even Nancy Peolis and Harrd Reid said of his 3.5 i believei t was Trillion Dollar budget for next year, both said it will not even be looked at minus a few things it willnot be voted on, In Novemeber of 2006 the American People Mandated a Change in Washington puttig the Democrats in charge,m the only problem now is that the Democrats in the House even with a Controlling interst do not havea big enough majority (1 vote) to over ride Bushes veto's
Thing will change in November afterthe ekection, I will not take side on that, but unless something miraclous happens in then ext 10 months after 8 years of Bush, I do not believe the American Electoratewill give ANY Republican another 4 years in the White House, granted who ever goes there may not be much better then Bush, but nobody in the world could be worse them him

No, and on the contrary, they repeatedly vote to extend and send more troops. They certainly must have information that we don't have access to that implies it was the right thing to do.

I guess I'm trying to narrowly argue the topic. The war (and a host of related activities with regard to the Patriot Act) are way too broad to handle as a single subject. I just don't think an impeachment is going to do us any good... presuming you could even find him/them guilty of anything.

Among other things, the U.S. Declaration of Independence is a lengthy bill of particulars against the "abuses and usurpations" of King George III. If the revolutionary founders had had their own government, Jefferson would have used his writing skills to frame an impeachment bill. Among the "abuses" T.J. cited was the King's refusal to "Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." If the colonists were riled enough over taxes on stamps and tea to shake the world with revolution, what will their inheritors do with the "usurpations" of our present Chief Executive? As Jefferson wrote, "Let facts be submitted to a candid world":

1. He lied us into war in Iraq. According to the U.S. media-ignored British "Downing Street Memo," he "fixed" intelligence around a pre-determined policy of preemptive war. Results: 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths; about 1800 U.S. soldiers dead in two wars, 100s of thousands wounded and traumatized.

2. Under his watch, the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack on its soil. He opposed an official investigation, then stalled for months on testifying before a hand-picked committee. Finally testified behind closed doors.

3. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2000.

4. He was "elected" under dubious circumstances in 2004.

5. He has approved (and his Attorney General Gonzales has re-defined) torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere, while simultaneously opposing the International Criminal Court established to check such abuses. According to Amnesty International, the United States has established a Soviet-style "gulag" of torture around the world.

6. He failed to support the Kyoto Protocols, reducing greenhouse gases, but worked to open up Alaska's ANWR to drilling-despoiling an eco-system and increasing greenhouse gases.

7. He chose Halliburton toady Dick Cheney to be his running mate-twice.

8. He has attempted to pack the courts with ideologue-judges intent on overthrowing Roe v. Wade, and institutionalizing the police-state abuses of Patriot Acts I and II.

9.His "No Child Left Behind" education policies have replaced learning with testing and allowed military recruiters access to our schools, cajoling our children with military options before their minds have had a chance to open, question and challenge.

10.He is attempting to dismantle the Social Security system that has ensured "peace and freedom" for tens of millions of working Americans for seven decades ("peace" of mind and "freedom" from economic crises)-- rights hard-won by Labor and Progressives in decades-long struggles.

11. He has allied himself with Right-wing ideologues to curtail or abolish stem-cell research vital to the conquest of debilitating and fatal diseases.

12. He has failed to develop a coherent energy policy-except to prosecute wars for other peoples' resources. He fails to acknowledge the reality and impending disasters of Global Warming.

13. He has continued the Globalization project of his predecessors: outsourcing jobs, hollowing our middle class.

14. He has undermined the legitimate protective protocols of the C.I.A., politicizing the agency, awarding positions on the basis of ideological orthodoxy rather than merit and astute analysis.

15. He has subjugated his Administration to Neocon ideologues like Richard Perle, William Kristol and Douglas Feith; men who have endorsed the "settlement," expansionist and Wall-them-in policies of Ariel Sharon, sowing the seeds of anti-Arab racism, war and destruction in the Middle East for generations to come.

16. In spite of his rhetoric about freedom and democracy, he has allied himself with dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt and elsewhere. He has increased the flow of arms to these states and others, fomenting instability, turmoil and war.

17. He chose Rumsfeld as DoD Secretary twice, in spite of Rumsfeld's obvious failure to adequately plan for the post-Saddam era in Iraq, inducing massive "collateral damage," the looting of ancient treasures, and infrastructure destruction in a country we were legally and morally bound to rehabilitate.

18. He endorses the weaponization of space, "Rods from Gods," and other exotic, Star-Wars technologies to establish a twenty-first century American global empire that is doomed to create an arms race with China and other opposing coalitions, sowing discord and wasting the resources of the world.

19. He has presided over the most egregious media consolidation in the nation's history. While we have had "yellow journalism" and other media abuses throughout our two centuries of Republic/Empire, we have never suffered the consolidation of power that we have today. He has presided over the emasculation and cowering of PBS, while his disinformation troops have peddled fraudulent stories and comments to "reporters" like Judith Miller, Armstrong Williams and Jeff Guckert-"Gannon," poisoning the well of information, adding to the general confusion and Goebbelsization of our news.

20. He lied about, misled, or misunderstood the astronomical costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He continues to do so, diverting tax money for education, health care, the EPA, transportation and social infrastructure into war-making and destruction.

21. He has continued and enlarged the depraved Clinton policy of using depleted uranium on the battlefield; a policy bound to cause massive suffering and death to Americans and others for generations to come.

22. He has alienated our traditional allies and more than a billion Muslims around the world. He has ransacked the good will extended to the nation after the 9/11 attacks, leading a crusade of vengeance and reprisal, most often against innocents, judging without sufficient evidence, arrogating to himself a crooked, self-righteous Texas sheriff's power to execute without justice.

23. Under his watch, millions more Americans have been added to the ranks of the uninsured while health-care costs have exploded. His answer to these and other pressing social problems appears to be faith-based charities-in other words, preaching to the choir while stealing from the pews.

24. Under his watch, the North Koreans have, apparently, developed eight nuclear weapons and Israel has continued to increase and refine its arsenal-now estimated as high as five hundred.

25. He has murdered the English language.

sorry but these are the only 25 i could come up with

[ThisYouWillDo]

25. He has murdered the English language.



Now that's really funny! :D

[mkemse]

Now that's really funny! :D


as well as 4.300+ Soldiers

[Ozme52]

mkemse

WTF!! I didn't write some of the shit you quoted as me!

It's one thing to be too lazy to edit and spellcheck your own shit... and another to make it look like I'm saying things you believe.

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

And you can't impeach someone because you dislike their policies, their choice of advisors, or because he turned out to be stupid. You're just griping, not making a legitimate argument for impeachment.

[wmrs2]

mkemse

WTF!! I didn't write some of the shit you quoted as me!

It's one thing to be too lazy to edit and spellcheck your own shit... and another to make it look like I'm saying things you believe.

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

And you can't impeach someone because you dislike their policies, their choice of advisors, or because he turned out to be stupid. You're just griping, not making a legitimate argument for impeachment.

Ozme, please stay in these threads. Your voice of reasoning is refreshing. I have been reading the political threads to determine how much common sense and logical thinking is put into the threads. Motivation from most of the threads doesn't come from either. Most of the respondents are still reacting to the political ass kicking G. W. gave them in 2000 and then again in 2004.

What the disgruntled Democrats don't understand is that most Democrats really put the nation's well being ahead of their political party, as it should be with both parties. For 4 years after Bush won the 2000 election the disgruntled Democrats accused, ranted about chads, Supreme Court Judges, recounts, etc. They thought there own were listening. I guess maybe they were. If all the Democrats voted for the party, there was no way the Republicans could have won. In the end, Democrats love their country and will do what is best. That's why Bush was re-elected in 2004.

I have a feeling that Obama will be the next President. If he is, it will be because the people believe Obama will protect our country and keep us safe.If for any reason he fails to show the qualities needed to protect the country from our enemies, they will not elect him.

The sins of Bill Clinton were many and obvious. We Americans kept him because we felt he would protect us. Bill Clinton could not have won re-election without the many Republicans voting for him.

Even to a man in the Congress did the Democratic House defended Bill, although the blue dress was eventually found. With all this Hillary said it was all a right wing conspiracy. But, we all knew what all was going on. At least President Bush has never used past history against Bill Clinton or Hillary for that matter.

The point is, you cannot reason with these disgruntled ones. Even their own party does not consider their opinions as helpful just now Their arguments only fire up the Republicans and that's why Obama and Hillary are careful what they say.

[mkemse]

remember impeach only means indictment is does not mean removal from office, once indicted they still have to stand trial in congress
just a geberal remark not stand on the subject itself