Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could this lead to Bush's impeachment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:39 PM
Original message
Could this lead to Bush's impeachment?
I saw Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) on Countdown talking about the Fitzgerald to investigate whether Bush broke the law when he lied to them in the State of the Union Address. They quoted the requirement that the SOTU is a required report and its against the law to lie in a report to Congress.

I heard about the letter to Fitzgerald from 40 Congressmen to expand his investigation, but I never read it until now. This is from that letter:

<snip>
Since it is against the law to lie to Congress, it is fully possible that the Bush Administration's claims of an Iraq-Niger connection were illegal -- especially given the venues at which the claims were delivered (including President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address before Congress). That fact, when combined with the link between the Administration's behavior and the subsequent exposure of Ms. Wilson (Valerie Plame), is sufficient justification for Mr. Fitzgerald to expand his efforts.
<snip>

Link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/moren...


Are we talking about impeachment potential? Evem the Diebold machines won't help the Republicans if Fitzgerald finds that Bush committed a crime while in office and they don't do anything.

Should we start asking "What did Speaker Hastert know and when did HE know it?" since he is next in line?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Chance of a snowball in hell.
A repuke House will never vote to impeach. Even if they did, a repuke Senate would never convict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:42 PM
Original message
Which is why we need to get busy and flip those legislative bodies! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. dupe, sorry
Edited on Wed Oct-26-05 08:42 PM by MADem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not unless we take back Congress in 2006.
Diebold won't allow that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Absolutely, and perhaps to the Hague. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. No but I wonder if he realizes
what ninety million angry americans would look like coming up the White House lawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lena inRI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Rid of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfield. . .
and I'd be just as contented. . .actually moreso because without his "brain trust," GWB is

Nothing

. . .therefore, impeached in every way but officially.

Poetic justice will prevail as he fumbles about even morso without his henchmen. . .what a sight to behold. . .can't wait to enjoy that!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. I hope it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandyd921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Only if the House
initiates it. Question is, how much more would it take for the repuke House to file articles of impeachment--does * have to kill someone? :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prescole Donating Member (416 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Didn't Napoleon say something like, "Kill one and you're a murderer,
kill 2000 (or so) and you're a hero?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. TV news will run with this one...BUWAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO
TV news is complicit in the betrayal of democracy and those involved should be jailed when we get this country back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. Count the number of R's in Congress. Last I heard the R's have it.
No impeachment. There is no crime for which they would pursue impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. 06
Then we'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Gunslinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. Not a chance
Unfortunately I dont think anyone in the administration is going to lose thier job or go to jail either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hinchey's website released 10/25/05
The link in the opening post is to Rep. Hinchey's press release of September 15, 2005.

This is from his press release dated October 25, 2005:

"The American people's confidence in the integrity of their government is what is ultimately at stake with this investigation," Hinchey said. "President Bush repeatedly used the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as his primary justification for the need to invade Iraq. The disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity has the ability to unravel this elaborate scheme by the Bush Administration to invent the weapons of mass destruction excuse for war. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald owes it to the nation to take this investigation as far as he needs to so that the American people know the whole truth."

Link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/102505fitzgeraldinvestigation.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. Hitchey is talking about Fitzgerald investigating a crime
We're not talking about the Republicans investigating themselves.

I know it would require the Republicans (at least some of them) to vote to impeach. And we all learned the Senate has to vote to impeach too.

But if Fitzgerald comes back and says that Bush (along with Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and more) broke the law by lying in reports to Congress, I don't see how they cannot act. If not impeachment, then what?

This is from the letter the Congressmen sent to Fitzgerald:

A motive for making such false and fraudulent uranium claims would have been to thwart Congressional and U.N. efforts to delay the start of the war. Pending at the time that the Administration made its uranium claims in January 2003 was a Congressional resolution, H.Con.Res.2, submitted by five members of Congress on January 7, 2003, which expressed the sense of Congress that it should repeal its earlier war resolution to allow more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their work. On January 24, 2003, a few days prior to the State of the Union Address, 130 members of Congress wrote to the president encouraging him to consider any request by the U.N. for additional time for weapons inspections. On February 5, 2003, 30 members of Congress submitted another resolution, H.J.Res.20, to actually repeal the war resolution.

Had it not been for the uranium claims in the State of the Union Address, which sought to squelch congressional concern over the impetus for the pending war, the number of sponsors for H.J. Res. 20 would have been far greater. The influence of the uranium claims can be seen in the fact that 130 members of Congress signed the letter before the State of the Union Address, but only 30 sponsored H.J. Res. 20, which was introduced after the speech. The Administration’s uranium claims thwarted the congressional efforts to delay the start of the war since the Administration used the claims to allege that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program -- despite the failure of the U.N. inspectors to find such a program -- and thus falsely assert that Iraq posed an immediate threat that needed to be nullified without further delay.


<snip>

The Administration’s False And Fraudulent Uranium Claims Arguably Violated Criminal Laws Concerning Communications With Congress

The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001, prohibits knowingly and willfully making false and fraudulent statements to Congress in documents required by law. The two uranium claims in the State of the Union Address and the report to Congress concerning Iraq were false and fraudulent, and are in documents that the White House submitted to Congress. See House Document 108-1 and House Document 108-23. The law required the president to give such reports. Article II, Section 3 of the constitution requires presidents to give State of the Union Addresses. Section 4 of Public Law 107-243, which is the Congressional resolution authorizing the war against Iraq, requires the president to give reports to Congress relevant to the war resolution and the president submitted said report on Iraq pursuant to that law. Thus 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 was evidently violated.

The criminal statute, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371, prohibits conspiring to defraud the United States and is applicable since the Supreme Court in the case of Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924) held that to “conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” Senior Administration officials arguably violated Section 371 because their uranium claims had the effect of obstructing or interfering with the function of Congress to reconsider its war resolution and to allow further time for U.N. weapons inspections. If the whole truth had been told, Congress may well have withdrawn the war resolution or delayed the start of the war to allow further U.N. weapons inspections, which would have shown what we now know; that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had not sought the uranium. However, it should be noted that Section 371 does not require proof that the conspiracy was successful.

Link: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/091505fitzgeraldletter.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC