The Impeachment Clock

Goodby, you hateful criminal

2009-01-20T12:52:00.002-05:00

With the removal of the criminal George W. Bush from office, this site is officially closed.

Thank you (members of the last three Congresses not included) for watching.

Sarah Palin Doesn't Speak For ME!!!!!

2008-09-04T23:17:00.004-04:00

Graphic talent, *AND* brains! OK, She's one of my best friends. I'm not impartial.

Things to do in America after the Rule of Law is Dead

2008-07-10T14:47:00.010-04:00

In an effort to resist the discouragement caused by Day 935 when the Legislative branch of the Federal government gave away my civil rights to the Executive branch, I'm starting this list of things we newly emasculated Americans can do to defend our Constitution.

Network
Find kindred spirits on the Internet.
For example, here's a post from a guy named Tim Ferriss who isn't even political, but he knows the importance of "preventing dangerous laws — the rules of your environment — from coming into existence."
Organize
Join with those kindred spirits to keep the flame of liberty alive.
I've agreed with Senator Russ Feingold for years because he has been right about FISA forever! Now we need his Progressive Patriots more than ever before.
Sue the Bastards
When all else fails, invoke the power of the Judicial branch.
I am not now (this very minute, that is) nor have I ever (before) been a card carrying member of the ACLU, but our give all the criminals immunity from prosecution/impeachment Congress has pushed me over the edge!

Please send me your ideas for new items and resources to add to my list. If we don't protect our rights, no one will do it for us.

Day 935: The Clock Stops Now

2008-07-09T13:58:00.001-04:00

Today, by a vote of 69 to 28, the United States Senate gave the President and his fellow criminals the keys to the jail, forever undermining the rule of law in America. The only comfort I can draw from the cowardice of Congress is that my two Senators voted against the Get-Out-of-Jail-Free "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" and my Representative who voted for it won't be returning next term.

Day 927: Is This the Clock's Last Week?

2008-07-01T17:53:00.005-04:00

Next Tuesday, the US Senate will take up the final piece of legislation that will give President Bush and all of his criminal co-conspirators a Get Out of Jail Free card. This is the last stop for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (HR 6304) already passed by the House of Representatives, the Congressional body that should have used Bush's violations of FISA to impeach him, not reward him.

The shameless nature of this end run on the Constitution is so obvious that even the right wing Washington Times describes it as "legislation to legalize President Bush's undocumented wiretapping program." Hey folks, if you have to legalize something, it must have been an illegal (impeachable offense) to begin with!

But, we have one last chance in the person of Senator Russ Feingold. Russ sent me an email today outlining his plans, and I wanted to share it with you.

Alan,

All week I've read your emails, seen your comments online, and heard your phone calls. You don't want the flawed FISA bill to become law. I hear you and I wanted to let you know that I'm going to do everything in my power to stop this bill.

Much as I would like to I can't respond to each one of you individually so I've decided to respond online via video. I'd appreciate if you would take a moment to watch and pass it along to your friends and family or anyone you know that cares about preserving our right to privacy.

Thank you all for standing with me and speaking out about stopping the FISA bill. It's going to be an uphill battle but your words of support are a constant reminder of why this particular battle is worth waging.

Sincerely,
Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Honorary Chair, Progressive Patriots Fund

Since I consider you all to be my friends and family, I wanted you to know what a true American patriot is doing to protect our Constitution from the enemies of freedom, both Republican and Democrat.

Give 'em hell, Russ!

**UPDATE**
Thursday, July 3, 2008

Today I was invited by Senator Feingold to sign the following petition

SENATE PETITION TO STOP TELECOM IMMUNITY
I stand united with Senator Feingold and opposed to the so-called FISA "compromise" bill. Any bill that ultimately grants retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that helped President Bush spy on Americans must not pass. Vote No. Support a filibuster. I am depending on you to stop this bill.

As I signed, I added the following comment of my own:

Two and one-half years ago, the President admitted he had violated FISA. Today, 929 days later, is not the time to reward the President and his co-conspirators for their crimes. Stop the whitewash and start saving the Constitution. It is your solemn duty.

Go to this site and sign the petition RIGHT NOW!

On Day 907 One Small Step Was Taken

2008-06-12T17:37:00.002-04:00

On 11 June 2008 articles of impeachment were finally considered by the House of Representatives (see Article 24 for the impeachable offense: Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and sent to the Judiciary Committee. The vote was 251-166. For those of you who are interested in the names of the 166 members of Congress who continue to fail their Constitutional oath of office, they are:

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

If any of them represent you and are running for re-election in November, please do all in your power to defeat them.

A Sad Anniversary

2007-12-17T21:23:00.000-05:00

Two years of inaction have now come to pass. The Impeachment Clock has been running for two years under both Republican and Democratic Congresses, and there is no move toward impeachment. If anything, the only movement we see is toward greater protection against impeachment.

This is truly a sad time for democracy in America.

Get Out of Impeachment FREE

2007-08-08T22:18:00.000-04:00

Impeaching the President for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the sole province of the House of Representatives. Last weekend, after the Senate voted to re-write FISA to effectively legalize five years of blatant criminality, a majority of our Representatives agreed and really took impeachment off the table.

Here they are, the 227 members of the House of Representatives who voted to cover up the crimes of George W. Bush and give him a "Get Out of Impeachment FREE" card.

If any of these Representatives represents you, fellow American, make sure she or he is not re-elected in 2008. For example, Walsh (NY) is my Congressman, and next year he is HISTORY!

---- YEAS 227 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

“They have got us in a vise.”

2007-08-04T22:38:00.000-04:00

I am giving serious consideration to turning off the clock. Up until now I have held out hope that the Congress of the United States of America would finally come to its senses and Impeach George W. Bush for his admitted criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Today, that hope is just about gone.

I just read this, Democrats Feel Pressure on Spy Program, in the New York Times. The fact that the Bush administration is trying to get FISA re-written to cover its prior illegal acts should be the final piece of evidence needed to indict (impeach) him. Bush has been arguing since he admited violating FISA that he always had the authority to do so. If he is asking for the authority now, he didn't have it then. Slam dunk, folks.

Instead, the House of Representatives appears ready to change the law to accommodate the criminal. The unkindest cut of all is that my former Representative and good friend, Louise Slaughter, is quoted as follows:

“They have got us in a vise,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said as she left a Saturday afternoon meeting where senior Democrats were debating how to handle the issue in the final hours before recess.

I don't know Nancy Pelosi and I had just about given up on John Conyers, but Louise was always someone I could count on.

Say it ain't so, Louise!

The Immigration Debate

2007-06-16T11:22:00.000-04:00

My friends Troll and Monica in Philadelphia vehemently oppose the current immigration legislation being debated in Congress, legislation that G W Bush supports. I am also opposed to any new immigration laws because we are not adequately enforcing the current law.

Troll and Monica are staunch Republicans, as I am a staunch Democrat. I've been telling my Philly friends for years that the biggest supporters of illegal immigration are their fellow Republicans; business owners who profit from the use of illegal workers and donate some of those profits to Republican candidates. Here's a poster child for my argument: Maureen Torrey.

Maureen lives not far from me on her family farm in Elba, New York. She is a past chairman of the United Fresh Produce Association and is quoted in Big push to revive Senate immigration bill. Maureen and her family donate consistently to Republican candidates - and ONLY Republican candidates. She doesn't like the current immigration law, which is hardly ever enforced by the current administration. When the prior administration tried to enforce the law in western New York, Maureen was there to protect her inalienable right to employ illegal aliens.

501 Days and Still Counting

2007-05-03T06:49:00.000-04:00

We are well into the 110th Congress, and there is still no sign of Impeachment on the horizon.

Phil Worden explained it this way in Monday's Bangor Daily News:

My conclusion: It is the political will to impeach, not the legal grounds, that we lack.

I agree with him, but it's time to Put Impeachment Back on the Table!

Ave atque vale, Kurt Vonnegut, jr.

2007-04-14T14:40:00.000-04:00

I'm not yet ready to let Kurt Vonnegut go in my own words, so I invite you to read Verlyn Klinkenborg's editorial in yesterday's New York Times and this from Harvey Wasserman.

The Emperor's New WhiteWash

2007-03-11T10:50:00.000-04:00

Surprise, surprise, the administration is misusing its intelligence gathering powers.

It's all over the news that the FBI abused its authority under the PATRIOT Act. Lost in all these revelations about our top law enforcers breaking the law was this item of criminal cover-up:

Privacy Board Clears U.S. Spy Programs

Remember when the President of the United States started illegally spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act way back in 2001? Well, this same criminal administration decided it needed to police itself, so it set up a five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in 2005. Last week, the board issued its report. Surprise, surprise, the illegal spying program got a clean bill of health.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called it absurd that the White House board effectively gave the eavesdropping program its stamp of approval even before the administration was forced to backtrack and submit it to court oversight.

"I have no confidence in the current board in its ability to provide meaningful evaluation of important programs such as the no-fly lists, based on its work on the domestic surveillance program," he said. "It is critical that Congress make the civil liberties board independent of the executive branch."

The board does not have subpoena power, and the White House can change its annual reports before they go to Congress. The members serve at the pleasure of Bush, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has final say over whether officials must comply with the board's recommendations.

How does the Emperor continue to get away with whitewashing his impeachable crimes? He appoints his good buddies to investigate him ...

Bush appointed [Carol] Dinkins, a Republican, to chair the board. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, and she is a longtime partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Gonzales was once a partner.

... and, hey presto, no criminal activity here!

The Final Story for Aileen in Northern Ireland

2007-02-25T16:51:00.000-05:00

This is Part 3 of a family story for Aileen.

I found Bill Broadhurst (see Parts 1 and 2) and his book, The Flaming Truth, on the internet in 2002 while researching the history of my ancestors in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Since the book was not available in the U.S.A., I purchased four copies directly from Bill and his co-author Harry Welsh to share with my sister, brother and one nephew (a New York City firefighter).

In the book, I found this account of the death of my uncle, Archie McDonald:

[O]n the night of 7-8 April 1941 the German air force arrived over Belfast. Just past midnight, having illuminated the city with parachute flares, the relatively small force of six Luftwaffe bombers began dropping incendiary and high explosive bombs, principally on the docks area. One of the first major fires to develop as a result of this was at the McCue Dick timber yard in Duncrue Street. As the regular and auxiliary firemen moved in to deal with this and the other fires in the area, a parachute mine exploded nearby killing Auxiliary Firemen Archibald McDonald and Brice E. Harkness, who were among the first casualties of the raid. By the end of the attack at about four o’clock in the morning of the eighth, major fires had started throughout the harbour area, including one as the aircraft factory of Short Brothers and Harland Limited. The local firemen began to experience the same difficulties as their colleagues in Great Britain had been enduring for some months.

Pages 174-175
The Flaming Truth: A History of the Belfast Fire Brigade
©William Broadhurst and Henry Welsh 2001

Bill Broadhurst and I kept in touch via email. When my son, Robert, went to Belfast in 2004 to compete in the World Irish Dancing Championships (Oireachtas Rince na Cruinne), Bill took him to Lisburn. That’s where The Rescue statue stands in front of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service headquarters on Castle Street. Here’s a picture of my son and Chief Fire Officer, Colin Lammey, in front of the statue:

You can see more pictures of the statue and the names inscribed on the Roll of Honour at Honoring Fallen Firefighters.

Here’s a picture of the man himself, my internet friend, Bill Broadhurst, taken in 2005:

Lest We Forget

2007-02-07T07:16:00.000-05:00

The clock is still running.

The impeachable offense that George W Bush admitted to 416 days ago is still on the table.

James Banford recently brought us up to date on the case for impeachment in Bush Is Not Above the Law. He reminded us of the grounds: Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Then he pointed out that:

The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was "illegal wiretaps." President Nixon, the bill charged, "caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 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."

Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.

How many more days before the 110th Congress puts Impeachment back on the table?

Farewell Molly and Bob

2007-02-01T22:24:00.000-05:00

I mourn the passing of two giants of American progressive political thought, who also made me laugh. Molly Ivins died on Wednesday and Father Robert Drinan passed last Sunday.

Like Rosa Brooks, I agree that Both were outspoken, brave, and funny, their toughness exceeded only by their kindness and their deep commitment to justice. We need more people like them.

The Irish Children’s Program in Rochester, New York

2007-01-26T21:48:00.000-05:00

I just read a piece by local columnist Mark Hare in last Sunday’s Democrat and Chronicle entitled Irish Children's Program is all about making peace. He says, in part, that

Since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, the violence in Northern Ireland has eased considerably. But still there is a wall of suspicion and mistrust between the Catholic and Protestant communities. Summer in Rochester is a way to ease that tension, a few children at a time.

It struck me as an anachronism, coming as it does almost ten years after peace broke out in Northern Ireland. In retrospect, I guess the declaration of peace was as premature as that "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq banner displayed behind Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln way back in May, 2003.

Aileen and my other good friends over at A Tangled Web who live in Northern Ireland day in and day out all seem to have problems of one kind or another with the "Peace Process" just like I have problems with America’s ongoing military presence in Iraq. I said the other day in reply to a comment ("Anyone who wants to stop the instability should support the Coalition efforts") by Charles in Texas.

Yes, Charles, let's see if we can tie all this back into Northern Ireland. The coalition has an army in the field trying to suppress inter-tribal violence that is killing civilians as well as military personnel. Some of the death squads are in league with the local government. Some of the death squads consider the coalition to be an army of occupation that they must drive from their land. Foreign countries (or citizens thereof) are sending guns and money to both sides.

Reminds me of an old joke about Richard Nixon: At least he kept our boys out of Northern Ireland.

Bush Has Stopped Beating Up on FISA

2007-01-20T15:22:00.000-05:00

One of the questions prosecutors aren't allowed to ask a defendant is "Have you stopped beating up on your wife?" If the defendant answers, Yes, he is currently guilty. If the defendant answers, No, he is still guilty if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

George Bush's attorney, Alberto Gonzales, announced this week that the President has stopped beating up on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the statute of limitations hasn't run out. After Bush admitted in December 2005 to violating FISA for more than four years, Attorney General Gonzales defended his boss by saying that FISA did not apply. Now Gonzales says that, not only does it apply, but they have decided to obey the law, five years too late.

In a normal world where normal rules of criminal procedure apply, a felon who admits to violating the law is indicted. In the constitutional separation of powers, an indictment is called IMPEACHMENT. The 109th Congress failed to impeach (indict) Bush after he admitted to high crimes in 2005. Now he has affirmed his confession through his attorney in 2007. Will the 110th Congress also shirk its DUTY TO IMPEACH?

Another Story for Aileen in Northern ireland

2007-01-02T08:09:00.000-05:00

This is Part 2 of a family story for Aileen.

Way back in Part 1, I introduced you to Bill Broadhurst via an email he had sent to me in 2002. Here's a little more background on Bill from his website:

A HISTORY OF BELFAST FIRE BRIGADE by Bill Broadhurst and Harry Welsh

Bill Broadhurst retired on 24th October 2003 from the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade while Harry Welsh officially retired on the 1st June 2003. Initially they became friends during their service together on White Watch at Central Fire Station Chichester street Belfast, when they discussed the history of the Belfast Brigade and where it could be found. Shortly afterwards as a search began it quickly became apparent that all or most of the records kept by the brigade had been destroyed or re-cycled during the Second World War to assist with paper shortages.

The history of the Belfast Fire Brigade has now been compiled to the best of their ability and a Book entitled "THE FLAMING TRUTH, a history of the Belfast Fire Brigade" has been published by Flaming Publications and printed by The Priory Press, Holywood, Co.Down after assistance with the costs were granted by the Belfast City Council.

On the third page of Bill's website is, in fact, another photo of my grandfather just as Bill had told me there was. (Scroll down to the third picture which has the caption The Belfast Fire Brigade also operated the Emergency Ambulances throughout the city. They regularly took part in the many competitions which were held throughout Ireland. My grandfather is the third from the left in the first row.)

A Story for Silja in Finland

2006-12-22T22:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, over at A Tangled Web, there was a post that caught my eye. It juxtaposed an artist's rendering of the Freedom Tower to be built in New York City with a picture of a statue in Hartford, Connecticut. I offered a comment that discussed a third memorialization in the small town of Columbus, New Mexico.

My short comment was too brief to do justice to the subject I was raising, so I retrieved the following letter that I wrote to my friend Silja, who lives in Helsinki, Finland. Silja had asked me to explain why we Americans are the way we are.

Chalk it up to frontier mentality. Or Manifest Destiny. Or Westward Ho!

While we’re all Europeans, more or less, we never suffered from the frustrations of too small countries and too many boundaries. There was always the western wilderness to escape to. Historians call it the safety valve. Anyone who found life uncomfortable in the east could always go west, back in the 19th century, and build a new life. This was particularly helpful if you believed in a hated new religion (like Mormonism) or if you were simply guilty of theft or murder.

Go west, young man (and occasional woman). Clear the wilderness; subdue the savages. If you get into trouble, we’ll send the cavalry to save you. Remember, this land is your land, from sea to shining sea. Actually, we bought most of the west from Napoleon, who didn’t really own it, and the rest we took from Mexico, which was too puny to defend it.

Speaking of Mexico, in the early 20th century they had a revolution down there. Governments started turning over on a regular basis starting in 1910. I’m sure it made America very concerned to have such an unstable situation right on our southern border. Some people involved in the Mexican struggle were also bandits. One of them was Pancho Villa.

In 1916, Pancho and his men crossed the border and attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico and the Army post there. People were killed, property was either stolen or destroyed. U.S. General Pershing was sent with 10,000 men on a punitive expedition into Mexico. They chased Pancho Villa for months, but they never caught him. The next year, Pershing got to go on another expedition, this time to France to fight in the First World War.

The only reason I’m telling you this story is that today, in Columbus, New Mexico, there is a state park where the Army post used to be. It’s called the Pancho Villa State Park. I’m just going to take a wild guess that you won’t be seeing an Osama bin Laden State Park where the World Trade Center towers used to stand.

Alan

Saturday, 6 October 2001

P.S. The Villa raid was “the first armed invasion of the continental United States since the War of 1812, and also the last one” until 11 September 2001.

On March 11, 2006, to commemorate the 90th anniversary of Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, a new Exhibit Hall was officially opened at Pancho Villa State Park.

They even had a parade including a smiling Pancho Villa re-enactor.

Can you picture a similar commemoration at Ground Zero in the year 2091?

A Story for Aileen in Northern Ireland

2006-12-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

Last night, Aileen left me a comment that said, in part, "I don't know too much about America except that I have loads of blood relatives here." I could reverse her comment and say that I don't know much about Northern Ireland, but I had some blood relatives there in the last century.

Here's Part 1 of a family story (illustrated) for Aileen.

Hugh McDonald (Alan's Grandfather)
circa 1910

"[T]he man in the photo holding the cup [is] Hugh McDonald"

Hello Alan,

I was at a meeting tonight and one of the people there had asked me to supply him with some photographs of ambulances from the Belfast Fire Brigade. As I was showing them to him another person at the meeting George Morrison (The ex Chief Fire Officer) started to identify the different photos as he had been born in Ardoyne Fire Station in Belfast.

A photograph which I have attached shows the old horse drawn ambulance along with its crew holding one of the challenge cups which they had won. George said that the man in the photo holding the cup was Hugh McDonald and as well as being the First Aid instructor he was also the father of Archie McDonald, and that the McDonalds lived in number 6 Ardoyne Fire Station. George knew this because he lived in number 4 Ardoyne Station. So Hugh McDonald would be your Grandfather.

George told me that because the McDonalds lived in Ardoyne Archie had joined the Auxiliary Fire Service during the early years of the war, and as such was operating from that station whenever he was killed.

I had never heard this story until tonight, because if I had we would have been able to have put more into the book, as this is one of the photographs which we used. Also it happens to be one of the photographs which is on the web-site. So there you have it your grandfather Hugh McDonald was looking at you on the web-site all along.

All the best for now.
Bill Broadhurst
June 10, 2002

More to come in Parts 2 and beyond. Stay tuned.

A Year and a Day

2006-12-18T22:07:00.000-05:00

It is hard to believe that here in America a year and a day have passed since the President admitted to violating the laws of the United States and nothing has been done about it.

None of the arguments against impeachment that have been made by the defenders of the President's crimes are anything but distractions. The House of Representatives has not only the right to impeach, they have the responsiblity to impeach. Even if the Senate chose not to remove the President, that would not absolve the House from the crime of its inaction.

The founders of this nation mandated that America would never have a King. Impeachment is the tool that saves us from the failure of the Republic. It must be used whenever the President violates the law of the land. The 109th Congress has failed in its responsibility to save the Republic. Now we must look to the 110th Congress to right these terrible wrongs.

I for one will be watching.

A Message for Charles in Texas

2006-12-16T23:53:00.000-05:00

This is my first posting off the subject of impeachment on this blog. It may take me a while to get the hang of this, but here goes.

Charles in Texas also has a blog (Jeremiah's Helper), but we both do most of our communicating over at A Tangled Web. A few months ago I made a bet with Charles, and now I owe him some chicken wings. In order to deliver on my debt, I need an email address for him.

So, Charles, if you see this, check out my email address in my Profile and drop me a line. Also, good friends Troll and Monica, if you can get this message to Charles I'd be much obliged.

356 Days and No Longer Counting

2006-12-09T08:31:00.000-05:00

Today, December 9, 2006, the question this blog is based on was answered. The Republican Congress that could have impeached President Bush has gone out of business.

Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., gaveled the House to a close for the last time about 3:15 a.m.

They even missed the opportunity to repeat their last impeachment performance:

Of the dozen postelection sessions Congress has held since World War II, several have had historical significance. In 1954, the Senate convened to censure Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R) of Wisconsin for his "lynch party"-style hearings on the dangers of communism. In 1974, Congress met to complete legislation delayed by the Watergate investigation. In 1998, the House met for two days to impeach President Clinton.

It's my own fault for having any faith in this corrupt bunch, Bush's fellow criminals.

Now I have to decide what to do with this blog. Its purpose is officially redundant. I could change the purpose and keep the clock running on possible impeachment by a Democratic Congress, or lose the clock and keep up the call for impeachment, or redefine it as a general blog of my views on politics beyond impeachment.

What do you think I should do, Dear Readers?

351 Days and Counting

2006-12-03T21:26:00.000-05:00

According to today's New York Times, there is only one week left for the 109th Congress to act on H.R. 635. The Republicans have had almost one full year to act, and now their clock will run out in five short days.

Do the right thing, Republicans:

IMPEACHMENT NOW!

338 Days and Counting

2006-11-20T22:28:00.000-05:00

I know I've been away, but here's something to think about.

Happy Thanksgiving

286 Days and Counting

2006-09-30T09:44:00.000-04:00

After 284 days of refusing to impeach the President for his illegal behavior, the Congress of the United States on Thursday, September 28, 2006 passed H.R.5825, The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act in an unconstitutional attempt to make the illegal behavior legal ex post facto. Instead of moving to impeach, they're giving Bush a "Get Out of Jail" free card!

To their credit, 191 Representatives voted against this whitewash and for the rule of law in America; but to their eternal shame, 232 Representatives voted for the coverup and made themselves co-conspirators with the Predsident by aiding and abetting his crimes against the American people.

Just how bad is H.R.5825? You can read a liberal review at
Shredding the Fourth Amendment by Mark Agrast in Center for American Progress published September 29, 2006, or you can see what conservatives Bob Barr and Bruce Fein had to say about it in Surveillance Bills: Back to the Bad Old Days from NewsMax.com on September 22, 2006:

[H.R.5825] would return to the bad old days before enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) when the President enjoyed virtually limitless authority to gather foreign intelligence.

It would be especially irresponsible for Congress to risk renewing the disaster when the Bush administration has presented no cogent evidence that FISA impairs its ability to thwart international terrorism, i.e., that the warrantless surveillance program of the NSA has intercepted revealing communications that could not have been intercepted under FISA.

Remember that on July 31, 2002, the Justice Department informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that FISA did not need amending because the law was nimble, flexible, and capable of foiling terrorist plots in the bud.

In President Bush's Kafkaesque world, the Constitution must be destroyed in order to be saved. But in the rational conservative world of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution is best saved by being followed. That means defeating ... the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act.

I'm going to give the last words to Pete Seeger, the greatest living American and my personal hero. Take it away, Pete.

243 Days and Counting

2006-08-17T18:41:00.000-04:00

This will be a short and sweet message to all those who have been making believe that the President's illegal violation of FISA has really been lawful (including my good friends Skye and Troll and Grizzly Mama and Chas). Please read today's Federal Court decision (in PDF format) that unequivocally says:

The President, undisputedly, has violated the provisions of FISA for a five-year
period.

Let me spell that out for you: The President is guilty of high crimes and misdeameanors and must be Impeached, IMMEDIATELY!!

In case that doesn't convince you, read the whole opinion and see how every excuse put forward by you enablers of the Criminal in Chief is blown away. If that's too much effort, just read these closing words from Chief Justice Warren:

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would
indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile.

Impeach Now!

207 Days and Counting

2006-07-12T19:42:00.000-04:00

Soft Fascism
David Swanson over at OpEdNews was more successful than Diogenes of ancient Greece in finding an honest man. The man is none other than Texas Congressman Ron Paul who Swanson writes about in Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office.

A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

And this: "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law."

And Paul said the United States had entered a period of "soft fascism."

I phoned up Congressman Paul's communications director [Jeff Deist] in Washington this morning. More than confirming this report, I wanted to ask Rep. Paul why he would declare that the President should be removed from office, yet fail to introduce an article of impeachment or even sign onto Congressman John Conyers' (D., Mich.) bill, H. Res. 635, to create a preliminary investigation.

While Deist made it very clear through his defensiveness and hostility that I'd never get an interview on this topic, I'm not sure it wouldn't have an impact if, say, 10,000 people sent an Email to that address thanking Paul for his statements and asking him to do more than talk. Can you do that please?

I'd like to second Swanson's motion and invite you to write an encouraging email to Congressman Paul and get the bipartisan impeachment ball rolling!

203 Days and Counting

2006-07-09T05:19:00.000-04:00

Can you believe it? We've passed the 200 day mark, and still no action on impeachment.

I want to take this opportunity to move a reader's comment right up here to the first page. Yes, my friends, it's just too good to hide.

My most faithful commenter, the City Troll, wrote the following in reply to another commenter's thoughts on the recent US Supreme Court decision (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, available in PDF here) striking down Bush's attempt to use military commissions to try detainees.

The Supremes decision did NOT say that they had to be tried by a court of law, what it said was that the President didn't have the authority to make the decision on how they should be tried, they said that is the job of congress.

The question is will congress step up to the plate and create rules for trying combatents that were traditionaly defined as spies/terrorists under the Geneva conventions (those who engage in battle without a uniform). What the Supremes have done is added a clasification and it is now up to congress to define their treatment, but without that definition like it or not the President's wishes will stand.

It is heart warming to see that the Troll supports my position on the legal grounds for Impeachment. The President's wishes to conduct foreign surveillance as he is now doing would be legal except for the fact that Congress already stepped up to the plate and created rules for conducting foreign surveillance when it passed FISA.

195 Days and Counting

2006-07-01T10:30:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'm still here; and, yes, ther is news.

See Experts: Ruling Weakens Bush Spying Plan in Forbes.

A Supreme Court ruling striking down military commissions seriously weakens the foundation of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program, critics said Friday.

A congressional resolution President Bush relied on in creating commissions is a key rationale for the National Security Agency to listen in on phone calls without first obtaining a judge's permission.

The court "reinforces our view that the NSA operation was unlawful," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "The Supreme Court cut away the administration's principal legal argument for the NSA operation - the congressional resolution following Sept. 11."

Enacted a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution cannot be seen as authorization for military commissions, the court ruled.

In January, the Justice Department invoked the resolution 92 times in a 42-page paper designed to quell the outcry that the White House had broken the law with its program of warrantless surveillance. A centerpiece in the administration's counter-attack against its critics, the DOJ entitled the white paper "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described By the President."

That's one less phony legal argument for the criminal enablers in the House of Representatives to hide behind!

167 Days and Counting

2006-06-03T11:44:00.000-04:00

It’s been five and one-half months now. Five and one-half months of the House of Representatives willful dereliction of duty! This is truly a case of ”Justice delayed is justice denied.”

So much time has passed, in fact, that defenders of this Administration’s criminal acts are making believe (they may even believe it themselves) that no criminal acts occurred. They happily trot out the equivalent of “Get Out of Jail FREE” cards whenever Bush’s impeachable offenses are mentioned. Here’s a sample from just this week:

The FISA courts own origination legislation states that it can't infringe on Presidential power.
UNTRUE!
The legislative history of FISA says just the opposite!
[See Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic
Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information]
The statutory language in FISA and the legislative history of the bill that became FISA, S. 1566 (95th Cong.), reflect the Congress’s stated intention to circumscribe any claim of inherent presidential authority to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined by the Act, to collect foreign intelligence information, so that FISA would be the exclusive mechanism for the conduct of such electronic surveillance.
The Supreme Court has ruled that FISA can't take power away.
UNTRUE!
The US Supreme Court has never ruled on FISA powers!
[See Ibid. "The Court has yet to rule on the matter."]
The best legal minds in government agree that there is nothing illegal about the NSA monitoring these calls.
TRUE, just like OJ’s Dream Team agreed he was innocent.

The common theme here is to insulate and distance this Administration from its criminal behavior. The defenders are providing the House Republicans with bogus excuses to put clearly impeachable offenses out of their reach. I can hear the ghost of Johnny Cochran saying, “If it doesn’t Reach, you cannot Impeach!”

161 Days and Counting

2006-05-28T09:51:00.000-04:00

Whenever I discuss this issue on other blogs, the false dichotomy of left versus right immediately knocks the discussion off track. Friends, sanctioning criminality is not a partisan issue! The closest I’ve been able to get to agreement with the defenders of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping is on the subject of illegal immigration. I’ve even started looking for talk of impeachment on so-called Right wing websites, like News By Us, not news bias, Commentary, News Analysis and Opinion on the right side of the page, based in Boise, Idaho.

Here’s an example of how incensed a normal, red-blooded American “on the right side of the page” gets when the issue is “foreign nationals illegally on our soil.” The author of The North American What?, David Tatosian, sounds like me when he talks about The betrayal, treasonous acts and crimes committed by Mr. Bush and asks Should we call for his impeachment?

He even takes on criminal enabler Number 1, Alberto Gonzales:

Clearly, when it comes to illegal aliens Mr. Gonzales, like Mr. Bush, feels flagrant criminality is a social, rather than a law enforcement issue.

Clearly, when it comes to illegal wiretapping Mr. Gonzales, like Mr. Bush, feels flagrant criminality is a convenience, rather than a law enforcement issue.

147 Days and Counting

2006-05-13T23:25:00.000-04:00

What is the bottom line here? The Bush administration keeps violating the laws of the United States of America, and the Congress of the United States is negligent in its duty to police these violations.

Every time a defender of this crime spree talks, he or she lies about how it’s really legal because the President always has inherent powers to act in his position as Commander in Chief. Now, I don’t forgive any of them for lying, even if they’re not lawyers, but most of them are lawyers. The part of the argument that’s a lie is the one that ends at “the President always has inherent powers to act” without the rest of the rule which permits the inherent power to act only in the absence of a specific statute.

Readers of this blog will realize that I have concentrated on one and only one high crime as grounds for impeachment: Bush’s admitted violation of FISA.

My friend, The City Troll, writes in a comment this morning that FISA is an unconstitutional restraint on presidential power... On Face the Nation this morning, The Troll's senior Senator, Arlen Specter, unequivocally asserts that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been violated."

How do we square these circles? Simply. Violating a law that is arguably unconstitutional is still a high crime that makes the President subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives. When he is tried in the Senate, he can raise the putative unconstitutionality of the law he violated as a defense.

Listen, this is not rocket science, it isn't even complicated criminal law. It's obvious on its face; just as obvious as the complicity of the Congress in the crimes of this Administration!

141 Days and Counting

2006-05-07T13:33:00.000-04:00

One of the favorite arguments of those who defend the criminal actions of President Bush is that the President of the United States can't violate the laws of the United States because they don't apply to him in his role as Commander in Chief. There is no truth to this argument, but that doesn't affect its popularity. Every day that the Congress lets this violation stand gives the President reason to believe that he can go on violating the laws of the land.

It even emboldens him to do things like appointing the architect of illegal NSA spying in violation of the FISA, Gen. Michael Hayden, to the position of Director of the CIA. Editor & Publisher on May 6, 2006 observes that Hayden, Likely Choice for CIA Chief, Displayed Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment at Press Club.

In an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on January 23, 2006, the following exchange occurred:

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

But, there is good news in this article.

A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.

The National Press Club appearance wasn't the first time Hayden lied to protect the Administration's criminal conspiracy. I am reminded of this example of Hayden’s criminal behavior from ThinkProgress on December 19, 2005, FLASHBACK: Director of National Security Agency Misled Congress. When Hayden was NSA Director, he appeared on October 17, 2002 before a House committee chaired by then-Congressman Porter Goss.

GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act.
…

GOSS: Well, lets — again, I don’t want to get into details. I’m aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let’s just suppose this sniper [in the United States] is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?

HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it.

We now know that Hayden was lying to protect the criminal activity he was engaged in at the direction of the President of the United States. I encourage the members of the Senate to fully investigate Hayden's perjury on October 17, 2002 and his further criminal activity at the NSA when he comes for confirmation to the CIA post. Maybe that will get the House to stop aiding and abetting Administration lawlessness.

140 Days and Counting

2006-05-06T14:55:00.000-04:00

My friend, The City Troll, from Philadelphia has been chiding me because my new found day job has taken me away from my blogging. Okay, Troll, here's a story from your own backyard, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It seems your Republican member of the House of Representatives, Michael G. Fitzpatrick, is up for re-election this November. Well, Rob Kall has a suggestion for Congressman Fitzpatrick (How One Moderate, Honest Republican in Congress Can Save His Job and The Nation, OpEdNews.com, May 5, 2006) that I fully endorse.

If Fitzpatrick actually did something with major courage, and became the first Republican to join the 36 Democrats calling for impeachment hearings, he'd just about guarantee that he'd keep his job, unless he's depending on the right wing extremists in his party for his funding. Maybe he can make it as a new breed of Republican - one who responds to what is actually happening in this country and acts with responsibility, holding the President and Vice president accountable for their impeachable crimes.

Ironically, if he takes the first step and then other honest Republicans face the facts that they are supporting a pair of criminals, maybe he will be joined by other honest Republicans. Maybe there will be other Republicans who will show that they have some honor. If even one Republican signs on to the impeachment bill, that should shame a slew of Democrats to take the leap.

Before we know it, the number of Democrats supporting impeachment may even exceed the number not supporting it. And the number of Republicans supporting it might take on double digits. Once that happens the mainstream media will be forced to spend a LOT of time on impeachment. They will have to spend more time on the issues, on the accusations that the progressives have been talking about and complaining that the mainstream media have been ignoring.

On the other hand, we haven't seen one honest Republican appear in 140 days, so maybe the term "honest Republican" really is an oxymoron.

128 Days and Counting

2006-04-24T07:25:00.000-04:00

Today was the day for the House of Representatives to impeach a Republican President to be on track with their schedule for impeaching a Democratic President. Actually, they were already three days late, but I gave them the weekend off.

Even with an extension, they failed the test. As Claude Rains said in Casablanca, "I'm shocked; shocked to find out that there's politics being played here!" Actually, it's really more of a criminal conspiracy between two branches of government to defraud the American people. The President of the United States has broken the law and his Republican allies in the House of Representatives are aiding and abetting his crimes.

This is truly a sad day for the United States.

126 Days and Counting

2006-04-22T10:39:00.000-04:00

None of the Republican members of the House of Representatives that I have contacted have taken the time to inform me why they refuse to do their duty as elected officials and Impeach the President of the United States for his admitted violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many arguments have been put forth by people who are paid to defend the President, but I had not heard one word from the only people in this Republic tasked with and capable of holding Bush accountable for violating the laws of the land. Until today.

The rationale for dereliction of duty can be found in Chabot: Impeach talk a joke by Michael Collins which appeared in today's Cincinnati Post.

The last time there was a move to impeach the president, [Steve] Chabot was on the front lines. The Cincinnati Republican was one of 13 House managers in charge of presenting to the Senate the case for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Chabot may have been one of the lead players in the Clinton impeachment, but he finds all of this talk about impeaching Bush rather disturbing. No, make that downright ridiculous.

For starters, he said, no one has determined that Bush actually broke the law. Even legal scholars disagree on whether Bush's domestic spying program was illegal.

This is the Primary Lie put forward by the defenders of Presidential criminality. FISA is clear on its face, and Bush has just as clearly admitted to violating FISA. What "legal scholars" are disagreeing about is any possible defense that might be presented (in the Senate) after Bush is charged (impeached by the House) with violating FISA.

Attempting to remove a president from office is a serious matter that should never be politically motivated, Chabot said.

There is, in fact, a huge difference between Clinton's misdeeds and what Bush is accused of, Chabot said.

"The difference," Chabot said, "is this: You had President Clinton who lied under oath, who perjured himself, who clearly committed a crime. We had a definite breaking of the law, and I feel that nobody should be above the law.

This is the Secondary Lie presented by the defenders of Presidential criminality which they use to prop up the first. These liars know how to make something sound strong (definite breaking of the law) when they play prosecutor but soft (alleged perjury and alleged obstruction of justice) when they play defense. Chabot knows that no one has to prove that Bush violated FISA before he can be impeached, they only have to allege it. Despite all his bluster, that's all Chabot did to Clinton back in '98:

On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on party lines, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment: Article I, which alleged perjury before the grand jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article III, which alleged obstruction of justice, passed by a vote of 221 to 212.
(from Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton)

In summation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if violation of 18 USC 1623 is a crime, then violation of 50 USC 1809 is a crime; if a Republican controlled House of Representatives can impeach William J. Clinton for a crime (alleged) then they can also impeach George W. Bush for a crime (alleged). I rest my case.

125 Days and Counting

2006-04-21T22:13:00.000-04:00

As you know, the do-nothing Republican congress should have impeached Bush by today. For some reason, however, they thought they needed a vacation (in faithful imitation of their beloved President) so I gave them until Monday to get the job STARTED.

In the meantime, my friends have been telling me that I have to broaden the scope of my blog. So here are two current event items (that don't discuss violation of FISA) from today's news. Watch Neil Young Explain Why Bush Needs To Be Impeached... on Showbiz Tonight and President Bush Stands Up for Free Speech by Standing Up by Bob Cesca. The main argument in both pieces is the value of free speech rather than the issue of impeachment.

But, try as I may, I can't close without one shot across the bow of the Administration's pirate galley. From yesterday's OpEdNews.com we have Getting America Ready for Recovery From The Right Wing's Devastation by Rob Call. Assuming that the current Congress continues to avoid its responsibility to impeach, we might have the following scenario:

Once the 2007 congress is under way, if the Dems manage to eke out a majority in both houses, they should start impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney. The proceedings may not work, but one goal should be to immobilize and castrate Bush and his toxic whitehouse, including Cheney. If both Bush and Cheney can be impeached, then the Democratic Speaker of the house will become president. That will make for some interesting jockeying on the House floor. For all we know, a senior congressman like John Murtha could become president.

Take that, me hearties!

124 Days and Counting

2006-04-20T19:07:00.000-04:00

I've been arguing with my friend Troll from Philadelphia about why guys like him are so willing to give their elected officials a pass when they systematically 1) break some laws (FISA) and 2) fail to enforce other laws (immigration). Now I've found a real American hero (and one that I wouldn't have expected).

It's Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Today (as reported on CNSNews.com) Chertoff said:

[W]hat we're focused on is not just individual cases involving a single violator here or a single violator there, but actually looking at those people who adopt, as a business model, the systematic violation of United States law.
Chertoff said the government plans to "come down as hard as possible and break the back" of those organizations.

I will feel really secure in my homeland when Secretary Chertoff goes after all those criminals in the Bush administration that have made a business model out of ignoring United States laws that they find inconvenient!

121 Days and Counting

2006-04-18T07:45:00.000-04:00

I found this piece in last Saturday's Albuquerque Tribune where V. B. Price reminds us that No recent president has a scandal sheet as lengthy as Bush's.

Imagine Nixon or Clinton engaging in massive, electronic, warrantless spying on Americans, in direct opposition to a law Congress passed to protect us from just that. Could they have lasted a moment longer than it takes to say "impeachment"? Absolutely not. And then Bush's attorney general says it isn't beyond possibility for the government to electronically spy on all Americans.

If it weren't for a GOP-controlled House and Senate, would this president still be in office?

We know for sure that, if Bush were Clinton he would be impeached by this Friday!

118 Days and Counting

2006-04-15T10:40:00.000-04:00

As Bush Supporters, War Opponents, Plan Weekend Events In Crawford Area, it's good to know that not all Texans agree with my friend Chas from Dallas.

Go to today's Dallas Morning News (subscription req'd) Letters for Saturday 08:04 AM CDT on Saturday, April 15, 2006, and scoll down to:

Where's the outrage?

Re: "Tehran's Threat – Iraq war complicates our dealings with Iran," Wednesday Editorials.

It is astounding that this editorial finally admits that the Iraq war was prompted by an administration that ignored intelligence estimates warning that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of a resounding demand for the resignation or impeachment of President Bush and his guard, you tell us we have a right to be skeptical of the administration's ability to correctly judge and prepare for the contingencies of a Middle East war. You conclude that prior miscalculations make it more difficult for the president to rally the nation and the world to deal with the Iranian menace.

Miscalculations my foot! If there ever were high crimes and misdemeanors in our nation's history, they are now at hand. Have you no sense of outrage for the incredible carnage that this administration has caused?

Raymond McQueen, Dallas

Will the prediction of Chas from Dallas (Impeachment will begin on April 21, 2006) come true? Keep watching this space to find out!

115 Days and Counting

2006-04-11T21:28:00.000-04:00

We are closing in on Day 124 which will arrive on April 21, 2006. The significance of Day 124 is explained in my posting on Day 8 (Sunday, December 25, 2005) when I wrote the following, inspired by my friend Chas (Jeremiah's Helper) in Dallas, Texas.

Last Tuesday I told Chas I was going to create this blog based on the question "how many days will it take for a Republican Congress to Impeach a Republican President?"

Chas replied, "Probably just as long as it took a Republican congress to impeach a Democratic one!"

Since our Do Nothing (except break the law) Republican Congress will be ON VACATION on Friday, April 21, 2006, I'll give them an extension (not an amnesty) until Monday, April 24, 2006 to begin Impeachment proceedings!

105 Days and Counting

2006-04-01T23:07:00.000-05:00

It's official. The Republican National Committee officially endorses crime. It's no wonder their members of Congress also unanimously refuse to stop the criminal activity of the Bush administration. The following members of Congress support H. Res. 635 in the House / S. Res. 398 in the Senate:

H. Res. 635
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/31/2006
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 12/22/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/9/2006
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/31/2006
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/30/2006
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 2/7/2006
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/30/2006
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/7/2006
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/8/2006
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 12/22/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 2/1/2006
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/7/2006
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/7/2006
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 3/14/2006
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/31/2006
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] - 2/7/2006
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 2/14/2006
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 1/31/2006
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 2/1/2006
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 2/16/2006
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 1/31/2006
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/22/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 12/22/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 3/2/2006
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 3/9/2006
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/31/2006
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/31/2006
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/16/2006
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/14/2006
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 12/22/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 12/22/2005
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 3/14/2006

S. Res. 398
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 3/16/2006
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 3/15/2006

Not one of them is a Republican.

104 Days and Counting

2006-03-31T17:44:00.000-05:00

Once again, the Congress is making believe it is doing something about the President's violation of the laws of the Untied States of America. Once again, Senator Russ Feingold (Committee Hearing Statement on the Call To Censure the President) is setting them straight.

If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.

How much longer will this President be permitted to break the law with the willing assistance of this Congress?

99 Days and Counting

2006-03-26T13:46:00.000-05:00

As we approach the 100th day since the Criminal in Chief admitted to violating the law of the land, we have more evidence of what happens when the felons are running the Justice Department: Medical, law calls possibly tapped (Boston Globe March 25, 2006).

The National Security Agency could have legally monitored ordinarily confidential communications between doctors and patients or lawyers and their clients, the Justice Department said yesterday of its controversial warrantless surveillance program.

Responding to questions from Congress, the department also said it sees no prohibition to using information collected under the NSA's program in court.

As much as some Republicans would like to make this a partisan issue, every day that members of Congress do nothing to stop this crime makes each and everyone of them an accomplice.

Day 97 and Counting

2006-03-25T10:28:00.000-05:00

I just received this message that I want to share with you.

Hey everyone,

I rarely ever post to draw attention to my shows here, but I thought this weekend’s show was worth doing a little pre-publicity for.

On Sunday, March 26, I have Matt Rothschild, the Editor of The Progressive magazine, as a guest and the topic will be impeachment. Mr. Rothschild has laid out a very convincing case for impeachment of the President, and you can read about it here:

http://progressive.org/mag_wx030706.

You can also listen to a 16 minute audio recording of Mr. Rothschild laying out the case for impeachment here:

http://progressive.org/impeachment

The show starts at 10pm and runs until 12am. If you don’t listen live, you can also go to http://whiterosesociety.org/ATR.html for audio archives of the show, generally available within a couple hours after the program ends. All my archives are there, and also at the website, http://allthingsreconsidered.org

To listen live: http://allthingsreconsidered.org/listenlive.htm You will need either Windows Media Player, Winamp, Itunes, or other streaming media player.

Hope you join me!

Bruce [Burch]

Posted by Anonymous to The Impeachment Clock at 3/25/2006 03:15:43 AM

Day 89 and Counting

2006-03-16T12:39:00.000-05:00

For those of you who have heard of Senator Feingold's censure resolution but haven'actually seen it (S. RES. 398), here it is:

SRES 398 IS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session

S. RES. 398
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 13, 2006

Mr. FEINGOLD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.

Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress;

Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);

Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating--

(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.';

(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and

(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.';

Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including--

(1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and

(2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and

Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

While this reolution is not articles of impeachment, which can only emanate from the House of Representatives, it is a welcome and accurate indictment of Bush's violations of American law.

Day 86 and Counting

2006-03-13T11:53:00.000-05:00

This morning, I received a message from Senator Russ Feingold and another from Representative John Conyers. After taking the actions they requested, I wrote the following letter to my local newspaper:

Impeachment Now

Tomorrow the President of the United States will visit the Rochester area. Yesterday, Senator Feingold called for the Senate to censure the President for his illegal spying on Americans. It was 85 days ago that Congressman John Conyers introduced House Resolution 635: A resolution creating a select committee ... to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Now is the time for our Congressional representatives to get behind Conyers and Feingold.

On December 19, 2005, I heard George W. Bush say that he authorized a program of illegal intercepts in 2001; that he had reauthorized this program more than 30 times since; and that he intends to continue this illegal activity in the future. Since then, the President, the Vice President and the Attorney General have lied about the supposed legal basis for this illegal activity. Every other competent lawyer has said that it is a violation of the law of the land.

If we are silent now, we are complicit in this impeachable violation of American law.

Act Now on Impeachment!

Day 85 and Counting

2006-03-12T16:15:00.000-05:00

I thank Ralph Nader (White House Outlaws, published on Saturday, March 11, 2006 by CommonDreams.org) for directing me to the Report of ABA Task Force on Domestic Surveillance in the Fight Against Terrorism which the ABA House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly to adopt at its meeting in Chicago on February 13, 2006.

Day 84 and Counting

2006-03-12T00:12:00.000-05:00

For an update on the status of H.Res 635, read 30 US Reps for Bush Impeachment Inquiry.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.

“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’ resolution,” Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.

For news on what you can do, read Are you working for impeachment? by Carol Wolman on OpEdNews.com.

Impeachment is a legal, judicial process, the ultimate recourse of "we the people" against tyranny. It has been politicized, and the Republican majority in Congress refuses to let it go forward. "We the people" have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote them out of office in November, and to replace them with honest people who PLEDGE DURING THEIR CAMPAIGN that they will work to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as they take office.

Day 83 and Counting

2006-03-10T12:28:00.000-05:00

As the Administration and the Republican Congress play cover-up over future illegal spying, the President's criminal activity over the past four years is still grounds for Impeachment. For the most recent legal analysis, see Ex-Justice Lawyer Rips Case for Spying from the Washington Post of Thursday, March 9.

David S. Kris, a former associate deputy attorney general who now works at Time Warner Inc., concludes that a National Security Agency domestic spying program is clearly covered by a 1978 law governing clandestine surveillance, according to a legal analysis and e-mails sent to current Justice officials.

Kris, who oversaw national security issues at Justice from 2000 until he left the department in 2003, also wrote that the Bush administration's contention that Congress had authorized the NSA program by approving the use of force against al-Qaeda was a "weak justification" unlikely to be supported by the courts.

Kris acknowledged in his paper that many facts about the program are not known, suggesting that he was not briefed on the NSA program despite his senior position at Justice during the first two years of its existence. But he says that many of the key arguments made by the Justice Department in favor of the program's legality do not hold up under scrutiny.

An illegal act plus a concerted effort to cover the trail equals a criminal conspiracy!

Day 75 and Counting

2006-03-02T13:06:00.000-05:00

Please see Two Theories Confirmed in One Day? by the Anonymous Liberal. This is must reading for all those who think the NSA controversy went away or, worse, that the Administration has proved the legality of the NSA program. Here's one particularly pointed argument:

I think the administration chose not to go to Congress in the first place because it feared that any significant departures from FISA would trigger Fourth Amendment challenges which, if successful, would erect permanent legal barriers to certain surveillance practices.

Take that, Troll!

Day 73 and Counting

2006-02-28T13:17:00.000-05:00

You are cordially invited to Write a letter to Congress!

Tell Your Representative: Support Congressional Inquiry for Impeachment!

The text of your message will say:

I am writing to ask that you co-sponsor H.Res.635 which will create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

The President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and other high officials must be held accountable. Our Constitution demands no less.

Do it now!

Day 72 and Counting

2006-02-27T17:06:00.000-05:00

Please read The Case for Impeachment, an excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine by Lewis H. Lapham. In it the author asks Congressman John Conyers why he introduced his House Resolution 635 on December 18 of last year.

Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:

“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”

Day 67 and Counting

2006-02-22T17:20:00.000-05:00

There is a very good discussion on the subject of Spying, Secrecy and Presidential Power at this site where you can access the ACLU's National Town Hall in which a distinguished panel discusses the warrantless surveillance program and its impact on civil liberties and our fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution.

The discussion panel includes Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director; John W. Dean, former White House counsel; Mary DeRosa, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies at the CATO Institute; and Professor Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. Marvin Kalb, Senior Fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy is the moderator.

Day 65 and Counting

2006-02-20T21:08:00.000-05:00

Please read Time to impeach Bush by Bonnie Erbe.

One of my commenters says that "the wiretapping issue is fizzling out." Ms Erbe addresses that comment as follows:

Those blasphemously "liberal" media outlets have once again deprived the American public of widespread coverage of nothing less than startling poll results. The non-partisan polling firm Zogby International last month found that by a margin of 52 percent to 43 percent, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush "if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval."

But grassroots passion for impeachment prompted by this president's circumvention of Congress and the Constitution is what's driving growing public support. And America's transition from "Bush fan" to "Bush foe" is being ignored by the mainstream media.

The point of this blog is to track how long it takes those entrusted with protecting the law of the land to do their duty. Impeach the President today.

Day 60 and Counting

2006-02-15T16:02:00.000-05:00

For all of my Republican friends who love to spin about the liberal bias of the MSM, check out Media find lying about illicit sex more newsworthy than lying about warrantless domestic wiretapping of Americans.

Day 58 and Counting

2006-02-13T16:52:00.000-05:00

What are the "Inherent" Powers of the President? How the Bush Administration Has Mistaken Default Rules for Exclusive Rights By MICHAEL C. DORF in FindLaw Legal News on Monday, Feb. 13, 2006.

Another good analysis of the grounds for Impeachment, this article concentrates on the false argument that the President has exclusive powers as Commander-In-Chief that make FISA unconstitutional.

There are some powers of the President that cannot be limited by Congress. But not every action that the President would be permitted to take on his own is therefore his to take in the teeth of a Congressional prohibition.
---
[I]nherent Presidential authority to prescribe discipline for the armed forces is only a default setting. It can be changed by Congress. How do we know that? Because the Constitution expressly grants to Congress the power "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." This Congressional power would not be worth the parchment it's written on, were the President able to flout any and all rules and regulations Congress enacted.
---
The Administration claims that the President has inherent authority to order wartime warrantless surveillance of American citizens as Commander in Chief. That claim is probably correct, although the Supreme Court has never squarely rejected the argument that such surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment. But even if we put aside any Fourth Amendment objection, there is a world of difference between warrantless surveillance conducted on the President's own authority, and such surveillance conducted in violation of a Congressional prohibition such as FISA.

For if the President's default power to order warrantless surveillance stems from his inherent default authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, then surely the specific authority of Congress, expressly granted by the Constitution, to prescribe rules and regulations of those same forces can change the default.

Day 53 and Counting

2006-02-08T10:50:00.000-05:00

After reporting on supportive comments made on Monday by Republicans in the Senate regarding the President's illegal use of the NSA to wiretap Americans, we got some good news today from at least one Republican in the House. The New York Times reports (Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry) that Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) "said the House Intelligence Committee needed to conduct a painstaking review, including not only classified briefings but also access to internal documents and staff interviews with N.S.A. aides and intelligence officials." While Ms Wilson has not yet added her name to the list of co-sponsors of House Resolution 635 (see 22 US Reps Want Impeachment Probe), her call for an investigation by the Intelligence Committee of the illegal wiretapping will help lay the groundwork for the full House to move on Articles of Impeachment.

Today's other must read/listen is the Statement of Senator Russ Feingold On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program which follows up on Monday's Senate hearings.

The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king’s court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.

The Senator's bottom line is the same as mine: "This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law." Impeach the President TODAY!

Day 52 and Counting

2006-02-07T11:07:00.000-05:00

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority

The Washington Post published the transcript (from CQ Transcripts Wire) of Day 1 of the Senate Hearings (Monday, February 6, 2006) in three parts:

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
My friend, the City Troll, asked me to comment on how statements from Monday’s proceedings support my contention that George W. Bush authorized a program of illegal intercepts in 2001 and that this constitutes an impeachable violation of American law. Even though the Constitution gives the House rather than the Senate the responsibility of Impeaching the President for his criminal activities, and despite the fact that the Troll thinks that this is merely a partisan exercise, I will point out some of yesterday's highlights.

To avoid even the appearance of partisanship, I'm including only comments made by Republicans (except for one dialog between Attorney General Gonzales and Senator Feingold used to clarify an earlier comment of the AG) in the sequence in which they were made (except for an earlier explanation by Attorney General Gonzales used to clarify a later comment of the AG).

All emphasis is mine, as are any
intervening comments.

SPECTER: Well, speaking for myself, I would urge the president to take this matter to the FISA Court. They're experts. They'll maintain the secrecy. And let's see what they have to say.

GONZALES: I believe that it's Section 109, which talks about persons not engaged in electronic surveillance under cover of law except as authorized by statute. And I may not have it exactly right.
We believe that that is the provision in the statute which allows us to rely upon the authorization to use military force.
The legislative history appears to reflect an intention that the phrase “authorized by statute” was a reference to chapter 119 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Title III) and to FISA itself, rather than having a broader meaning.

GONZALES: I think the only case that comes to mind that's really pertinent would be the 2002 case, In Re. Sealed Case by the FISA Court of Review. While the court did not decide this issue, the court acknowledged that every case that's considered this has found that the president has the authority.
FEINGOLD: Isn't it true that the only federal courts to decide the president's authority to authorize warrantless national security wiretaps were considering wiretaps that were carried out before the enactment of FISA?
GONZALES: In which there were actual decisions? Actually, there was a 4th Circuit decision, the Truong decision, which was decided after FISA.
To be fair, I don't think they really got into an analysis...
FEINGOLD: And that case was about a Vietnam era wiretap, before FISA was enacted, right?
GONZALES: The collection occurred before FISA was enacted. The decision was made after FISA. And consequently my recollection is that case doesn't really get into a discussion about how the passage of FISA impacts or affects the...
FEINGOLD: If it was based on facts prior to FISA, then the only law that controls is the law prior to FISA, right?
GONZALES: That's right.
And then of course In Re. Sealed Case...
FEINGOLD: You covered that with Senator Feinstein. That was dicta...
Dicta = An opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding.
GONZALES: Yes.
FEINGOLD: Correct?
GONZALES: Yes.
FEINGOLD: Thank you.
So, Gonzales agrees that the only case arising under FISA did not rule on the issue he is arguing and the court's comments on inherent presidentitial authority were dicta, i.e., they had no legal value!

GRAHAM: In all honesty, Mr. Attorney General, this statutory force resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future. Because, if you overly interpret the force resolution -- and I'll be the first to say, when I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche.

GRAHAM: The FISA statute said, basically, "This is the exclusive means to conduct foreign surveillance where American citizens are involved." And the Congress, seems to me, gave you a one-lane highway, not a two- lane highway. They took the inherent authority argument, they thought about it, they debated it, and they passed a statute -- if you look at the legislative language -- saying, "This shall be the exclusive means."

GRAHAM: All I'm saying is that the inherent authority argument, in its application, to me, seems to have no boundaries when it comes to executive decisions in a time of war. It deals the Congress out, it deals the courts out.

CORNYN: And clearly the Supreme Court, in the Hamdi case, said what we all know to be the fact, and that is no president is above the law, no person in this country, regardless of how exalted their position may be or how relatively modest their position may be -- we're all governed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
Thanks for clearing that up. So, let's stop comparing this to WWII!

KYL: Is it possible to acknowledge the FISA authority exists while also making the point that it's not the optimal or maybe even workable method of collection of the kind that's done under the surveillance program at issue here?
GONZALES: No question about it. It was one of the reasons for the terrorist surveillance program, is that while FISA ultimately may be used, it would be used in a way that's ineffective, because of the procedures that are in FISA.
This gets us back to the "we violated the law because it was inconvenient" excuse.

DEWINE: We've had a lot of discussion today, and you've referenced a lot to this group of eight, reporting to this group of eight.
I just want to make a point. It's a small point, I guess, but the statutory authorization for this group of eight is 50 USC 413(b). When you look at that section, the only thing this references as far as what this Group of Eight does is receive reports in regard to covert action. So that's really what all it is. It does not cover a situation like we're talking about here at all.
So, even Republicans are tired of the "blame it on the mysterious Gang of 8" excuse.

GRAHAM: Is it your opinion and the administration's position, without the force resolution that FISA is unconstitutional in the sense it intrudes on the power of the president to conduct surveillance in the time of war?
GONZALES: I think that question has been raised a couple of times today. I have indicated that that, then, puts us into the third part of the Jackson analysis.
The third part was where the president is acting in contravention -- not in contravention, but in a way that's incompatible with congressional action.
Yes, the president is CLEARLY acting in contravention, in violation, of not only Congressional action but of the law of the land.

Those were some of my favorite quotes from Day 1 of the Senate Hearings.

Day 48 and Counting

2006-02-03T12:47:00.000-05:00

ACLU Calls For Special Counsel: Add Your Voice

When President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, he violated the law, the Constitution and his oath of office.

No American is beneath the law's protection. And no one -- not even a U.S. president -- is above the law's limits.

Our system of checks and balances must be maintained if American democracy is to be preserved. Take action NOW by going to this Urgent Action Alert.

I went there, and this is the letter I sent to my Senators:

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." ~ Samuel Adams

I invoke this quote by Samuel Adams to urge Congress to hold public and thorough hearings to investigate President Bush's authorization of warrantless electronic surveillance of people within the United States, including U.S. citizens, by the National Security Agency (NSA). I also call on you to request that the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to investigate any and all criminal acts and/or abuses of power committed by any member of the Executive Branch who may have been involved in the warrantless surveillance.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as well as the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution clearly prohibit the warrantless surveillance of American citizens. FISA was passed by Congress in response to revelations that former President Nixon was using "national security" claims to spy on his enemies. The law specifically prohibits this abuse of power by the Executive Branch. Under FISA, federal agents are required to get court approval in order to monitor the communications of any person in the United States. FISA does permit the surveillance of people in the country linked to al Qaeda, but only with a court order. To do otherwise is a violation of federal law punishable "by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

Thus, when President Bush authorized, and then repeatedly reauthorized, the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance on people on U.S. soil -- whether their calls or emails were from or to family, friends or business colleagues abroad -- without a warrant, he violated both the letter and the spirit of FISA and overstepped his Constitutional authority.

Our nation's founders wisely established a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses of power by any one branch of government. For the sake of our democracy, Congress must uphold its responsibility to the Constitution and the American people investigate any and abuses of power by the Executive Branch. We cannot play partisan politics when nothing less than our freedom is at stake.

Because of Attorney General Gonzales' involvement in the authorization of the wiretapping program, a special counsel is necessary to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation is conducted into the matter.

In the event that the investigation or Congressional hearings find that criminal acts were committed by members of the Executive Branch, then those responsible must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Again, I urge you to investigate President Bush's authorization of warrantless electronic surveillance of people within the United States by the NSA and to request that the DOJ appoint a special counsel to investigate any and all criminal acts and/or abuses of power committed by any member of the Executive Branch who may have been involved in the warrantless surveillance.

No one is above the law, not even the President. Our system of checks and balances must remain intact if our democracy is to survive.

I look forward to your response.

Do it Now!

Day 46 and Counting

2006-02-01T23:34:00.000-05:00

Please see yesterday's excellent analysis Impeachment: Time for Citizens to Insist Bush Obey the Law which includes the following:

A high crime or misdemeanor means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government. In this case President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed crimes – indeed the violation of FISA alone is a five-year felony. While impeachment should not be lightly pursued, Congress must exercise its responsibility and safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.

It isn't only the President and Vice President who are breaking the law, but Bush is the Criminal in Chief. Today, Congressman Barney Frank correctly said that our country is in the hands of a "vast right-wing kleptocracy."

Kleptocracy: A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption.

For more information, I went to Common Good State: The Next Phase of Human Societies which says, in part:

Kleptocratic governments are very common in authoritative societies. But even in democracies politicians and other powerholders are corrupted by their desire to obtain power and maintain it. Their need to gain and hold office (and power) requires contributions from special interests. These in turn expect and receive favorable legislation, government contracts and other economic and financial benefits. This excessive shifting of resources to the well-to-do ensures that many social and economic problems remain unresolved. In effect, a form of mild kleptocracy comes into existence, based on the human weaknesses of greed and hunger for power. The current Enron scandal disclosed that even the highly democratic political system of the United States can be tainted by this weakness.

No one is above the law, not the President, not the Vice President, not the Republican Congress.

Day 45 and Counting

2006-01-31T13:30:00.000-05:00

Tonight is the State of the Union, and the ACLU has some good ideas about it:

Day 40 and Counting

2006-01-26T13:45:00.000-05:00

For the latest admission of an impeachable offense by the President of the United States, see the following Q & A from President Bush's Press Conference on January 26 reported by the Christian Wire Service:

Q Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law if you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential power?

THE PRESIDENT: May I -- if I might, you said that I have to circumvent it. There -- wait a minute. That's a -- there's something -- it's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law. I'm not. See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.

Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.

FISA is not the OLD law, it's the CURRENT LAW that Bush has again admitted to breaking! How many times does this scofflaw have to say "I did it!" before the Republican Congress takes action?

Day 38 and Counting

2006-01-24T19:06:00.000-05:00

Today's best article is ''What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime" by John Nichols, which describes what Representative John Conyers has been doing to keep the impeachment ball rolling in the House Judiciary Committee. As the article makes clear, the true responsibilty to go forward rests with the Committee Chairman, Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

As the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sensenbrenner has a Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to take seriously the charges of executive lawbreaking and impropriety that are currently in play. If he cannot execute this responsibility in a reasoned and bipartisan manner, then he has a duty to step aside.

"Last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizen's constitutional rights trampled upon," explained Conyers, who has played a critical role in investigations of wrongdoing by Democratic and Republican presidents since the days when Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House.

As the Bush administration spreads its spin to change the nature of this debate, it is essential to remember that the issue is the President's admitted violation of the law of the United States. This is a criminal issue not a political issue.

Day 32 and Counting

2006-01-18T13:42:00.000-05:00

Another great dissertation by a group of legal scholars on the basis for impeachement can be found at ON NSA SPYING: A LETTER TO CONGRESS, which says, in part:

Although the program's secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.

All of the excuses presented by Bush's defenders (including § 1811. Authorization during time of war) are addressed.

Day 31 and Counting

2006-01-17T12:20:00.000-05:00

Please read Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping by Bob Fertik. Of special interest is:

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests.

and the details of Zogby's poll of Likely Voters.

Day 26 and Counting

2006-01-12T13:19:00.000-05:00

Please read Elizabeth Holtzman's excellent piece, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, in The Nation. She lays it out both simply and persuasively, for example:

Warrantless Wiretaps
On December 17 President Bush acknowledged that he repeatedly authorized wiretaps, without obtaining a warrant, of American citizens engaged in international calls. On the face of it, these warrantless wiretaps violate FISA, which requires court approval for national security wiretaps and sets up a special procedure for obtaining it. Violation of the law is a felony.

Day 25 and Counting

2006-01-11T13:37:00.000-05:00

Here's another in the series of ads:

Day 24 and Counting

2006-01-10T12:43:00.000-05:00

The best reading over the weekend was Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information from the Congressional Research Service. It's not as easy to read as John Dean's analysis (see Day 14), but it covers every Administration argument in detail. In short, it makes an iron-clad case for immediate impeachment.

Day 19 and Counting

2006-01-05T16:42:00.000-05:00

Just in case you haven't seen this ad yet:

Day 14 and Counting

2005-12-31T23:39:00.000-05:00

For a good, readable analysis of the legal issues involved, please see John Dean's Commentary from FindLaw.

And a Happy New Year to all!

Day 12 and Counting

2005-12-29T12:47:00.000-05:00

From our friends over at the Impeach Bush Coalition comes this

Impeachment Checklist
1. Familiarize yourself with The Question.:
"The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants."

2. Send an email to all of these media folks and ask them "The Question."

3. Sign Senator Boxer's petition.

4. Contact your Senator.

5. Contact your congressman.

6. Contact Congressman Pete Hoekstra too.

7. File a Freedom of Information Act request HERE.

8. Sign John Conyers' petition to censure and investigate impeachment.

9. Join the guerilla marketing campaign.

10. Make a donation to ImpeachPAC.

11. Join the Impeach Bush Coalition.

(Thanks to Redneck Mother for inspiring the list.)

(Copied with permission from Bulldog Manifesto)

Day 8 and Counting

2005-12-25T21:04:00.000-05:00

For a good update on the last week's worth of events, see As Concerned Surveillance Court Judges Seek Briefing, Extent of Secret Domestic Spying Program Appears Far Broader than Bush Acknowledged from NewsInferno.com.

I'd especially like to call the attention of my friend, Chas (Jeremiah's Helper) in Dallas,Texas, to the following words from a fellow Texan:

U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview that his information about the program has been largely limited to accounts in the press.

"Why didn't it go through FISA?" Kazen asked. He believes there are valid questions that the administration should be asked. “The president at first said he didn't want to talk about it. Now he says, 'You're darn right I did it, and it's completely legal.' I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal. I want to hear those arguments."

Last Tuesday I told Chas I was going to create this blog based on the question "how many days will it take for a Republican Congress to Impeach a Republican President?"

Chas replied, "Probably just as long as it took a Republican congress to impeach a Democratic one!"

That gives us our first benchmark for estimating the actual Impeachment Date:

Our former President (a Democrat) was impeached by a Republican House of Representatives on December 18, 1998.

Said former President had admitted on national televison on August 17, 1998 that he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky (the basis for the impeachment).

Net number of days between August 17, 1998 and December 18, 1998 is ...

124
Based on this benchmark, George W. Bush will be impeached on:

Friday, April 21, 2006
Now, won't that be a Good Friday (Orthodox)

Day 6 and Counting

2005-12-23T11:09:00.000-05:00

The highlight in today's news is this from the Washington Post.

Seems that the Justice Department has been trying to defend Bush's illegal acts by saying that "Congress implicitly created an exception to FISA's warrant requirement by authorizing President Bush to use military force in response to" 9/11. Too bad for them that former Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, says that language legalizing what Bush later did was explicitly rejected before the Senate voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Day 5 and Counting

2005-12-22T13:45:00.000-05:00

This blog is dedicated to the concept that no one is above the law.

On Saturday, December 17, 2005, President George W. Bush stated:

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks."

This is a clear admission by the President that he violated 18 United States Code § 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited which requires that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [50 United States Code §§ 1801 et seq.] shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act [50 United States Code § 1801], and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."

As stated in the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Violation of 18 USC 2511 is clearly a high crime. The House of Representatives must exercise its duty under Constitution, Article I, Section 2, and institute impeachment proceedings immediately. To this end, on December 18, 2005, Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan introduced House Resolution 635 "creating a select committee ... to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."