You are herecontent / Impeachment: Selected Readings & Resources

Impeachment: Selected Readings & Resources


Compiled by B.G. Bandler

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. - U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4.

1. Definition of Impeachment…Pg.1
2. The Impeachment Process…Pg.1
3. State-Level Actions…Pg.2
4. The Rule of Law…Pg.2
5. Impeachment of Bill Clinton…Pg.4
6. Resources…Pg.4
7. Bibliography…Pg.5
8. Special Focus: Cheney, Pelosi…Pg.24
9. Polls…Pg.26
10. Websites…Pg.26
11. Censure…Pg.26

1. Definition of Impeachment.
Technically, impeachment is the Senate's quasi-criminal proceeding instituted to remove a public officer, not the actual act of removal. Most references to impeachment, however, encompass the entire process, beginning with the House's impeachment inquiry. [www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is a good starting place. Herewith the introductory excerpt:
“Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office. Conviction of officials involves an overturning of the normal constitutional procedures by which individuals achieve high office (election, ratification or appointment) and because it generally requires a supermajority, typically only those deemed to have seriously abused their offices will suffer impeachment.
One tradition of impeachment has its origins in the law of England, where the procedure last took place in 1806. Impeachment exists under constitutional law in many nations around the world, including the United States, Russia, the Philippines and the Republic of Ireland.
Etymologically, the word "impeachment" derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Mediaeval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). Impeachment of a witness means challenging his or her honesty or credibility. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment]

2. The Impeachment Process.

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.
3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.
4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.
5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.
7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV. [“The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell,” http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm]

"Impeachment, as anyone who lived through the Nixon or Clinton impeachment dramas knows, is a long, drawn-out process. It could easily take two years to go from the submission of a bill of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee, through committee hearings on articles of impeachment, to a debate and vote in the full House. In the event that the House were to vote out one or more articles of impeachment, it would then take months for House impeachment managers and the president's legal team to prepare for a Senate trial, which would then also be a rancorous and drawn-out affair.” – Dave Lindorff, http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

3. State-Level Actions.

The legal basis for these unprecedented state-level actions was discovered when, according to Steven Leser, Illinois Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough "stumbled on a little known and never utilized rule of the U.S. House of Representatives." The rule was written in a book formerly known as Jefferson's Manual, which, according to C-SPAN, "is a book of rules of procedure and parliamentary philosophy…written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801…[used by the House] as a supplement to its standing rules." Section LIII, sec. 603 states, "There are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion… [one of them is] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State …" – Evan Derkacz. “Impeaching Bush, State by State,” AlterNet, 4-26-06. http://www.alternet.org/story/35467/

4. The Rule of Law.

The United States Agency for International Development: Rule of Law. Last Update: Friday, 16-Nov-2001.
End of DG Navigation Table
“The term "rule of law" embodies the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law, fairness, and both constitutional and actual guarantees of basic human rights. A predictable legal system with fair, transparent, and effective judicial institutions is essential to the protection of citizens against the arbitrary use of state authority and lawless acts of both organizations and individuals. In many states with weak or nascent democratic traditions, existing laws are not equitable or equitably applied; judicial independence is compromised; individual and minority rights are not truly guaranteed; and institutions have not yet developed the capacity to administer existing laws. Weak legal institutions endanger democratic reform and sustainable development in developing countries.
Without the rule of law, a state lacks (a) the legal framework necessary for civil society to flourish; (b) adequate checks on the executive and legislative branches of government; and (c) necessary legal foundations for free and fair electoral and political processes. Beyond the democracy and governance sector, the accomplishment of other USAID goals relies on effective rule of law. For example, civil and commercial codes that respect private property and contracts are key ingredients for the development of market-based economies. USAID's efforts to strengthen legal systems fall under three inter-connected priority areas: supporting legal reform, improving the administration of justice, and increasing citizens' access to justice.
……

THE RULE OF LAW
Source: usinfo.state.gov

Equality and the Law
The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.
The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."
No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served.
The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.
The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."
No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served.

Due Process
In every society throughout history, Frank points out, those who administer the criminal justice system hold power with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state, individuals have been imprisoned, had their property seized, and been tortured, exiled and executed without legal justification--and often without any formal charges ever being brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses.
Every state must have the power to maintain order and punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be public and explicit, not secret, arbitrary, or subject to political manipulation by the state.

What are the essential requirements of due process of law in a democracy?

* No one's home can be broken into and searched by the police without a court order showing that there is good cause for such a search. The midnight knock of the secret police has no place in a democracy.
* No person shall be held under arrest without explicit, written charges that specify the alleged violation. Not only are persons entitled to know the exact nature of the charge against them, they also must be released immediately, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus, if the court finds that the charge is without justification or the arrest is invalid.
* Persons charged with crimes should not be held for protracted periods in prison. They are entitled to a speedy and public trial, and to confront and question their accusers.
* The authorities are required to grant bail, or conditional release, to the accused pending trial if there is little likelihood that the suspect will flee or commit other crimes. "Cruel and unusual" punishment, as determined by the traditions and laws of the society, is prohibited.
* Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This prohibition against involuntary self- incrimination must be absolute. As a corollary, the police may not use torture or physical or psychological abuse against suspects under any circumstances. A legal system that bans forced confessions immediately reduces the incentives of the police to use torture, threats, or other forms of abuse to obtain information, since the court will not allow such information to be placed into evidence at the time of trial.
* Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice. Any person tried by a court and found not guilty can never be charged with that same crime again.
* Because of their potential for abuse by the authorities, so-called ex post facto laws are also proscribed. These are laws made after the fact so that someone can be charged with a crime even though the act was not illegal at the time it occurred.
* Defendants may possess additional protections against coercive acts by the state. In the United States, for example, the accused have a right to a lawyer who represents them in all stages of a criminal proceeding, even if they cannot pay for such legal representation themselves. The police must also inform suspects of their rights at the time of their arrest, including the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent (to avoid self- incrimination).

A common tactic of tyranny is to charge opponents of the government with treason. For this reason, the crime of treason must be carefully limited in definition so that it cannot be used as a weapon to stifle criticism of the government.
None of these restrictions means that the state lacks the necessary power to enforce the law and punish offenders. On the contrary, the criminal justice system in a democratic society will be effective to the degree that its administration is judged by the population to be fair and protective of individual rights, as well as of the public interest.
Judges may be either appointed or elected to office, and hold office for specified terms or for life. However they are chosen, it is vital that they be independent of the nation's political authority to ensure their impartiality. Judges cannot be removed for trivial or merely political reasons, but only for serious crimes or misdeeds--and then only through a formal procedure, such as impeachment (the bringing of charges) and trial in the legislature.

Constitutions
The rock upon which a democratic government rests is its constitution--the formal statement of its fundamental obligations, limitations, procedures, and institutions. The constitution of the country is the supreme law of the land, and all citizens, prime ministers to peasants alike, are subject to its provisions. At a minimum, the constitution, which is usually codified in a single written document, establishes the authority of the national government, provides guarantees for fundamental human rights, and sets forth the government's basic operating procedures.
Despite their enduring, monumental qualities, constitutions must be capable of change and adaptation if they are to be more than admirable fossils. The world's oldest written constitution, that of the United States, consists of seven brief articles and 27 amendments. This written document, however, is only the foundation for a vast structure of judicial decisions, statutes, presidential actions, and traditional practices that has been erected over the past 200 years--and kept the U.S. Constitution alive and relevant.
This pattern of constitutional evolution takes place in every democracy. In general, there are two schools of thought about the process of amending, or changing, a nation's constitution. One is to adopt a difficult procedure, requiring many steps and large majorities. As a result, the constitution is changed infrequently, and then only for compelling reasons that receive substantial public support. This is the model of the United States, whose Constitution is a brief statement of the general principles, powers, and limits of government, together with a more specific listing of duties, procedures, and, in the Bill of Rights, the fundamental rights of individual citizens.
A much simpler method of amendment, which many nations use, is to provide that any amendment may be adopted by approval of the legislature and passed by the voters at the next election. Constitutions able to be changed in this fashion can be quite lengthy, with specific provisions that differ little from the general body of legislation.
No constitution like America's, written in the 18th century, could have survived unchanged into the late 20th century. Similarly, no constitution in force today will survive into the next century without the capacity for change--while still holding fast to principles of individual rights, due process, and government through the consent of the governed.

Resource: www.centerfortheruleoflaw.org

5. Impeachment of Bill Clinton.

There are Americans who are confused about the result of the Impeachment charges against President Bill Clinton. Contrary to a popular public misconception, Clinton was successfully impeached (that is, the House did successfully send him to be tried by the Senate). He was not, however, successfully convicted of any of the charges (which is why he was not removed from office), nor was he given any penalty (beyond the censure of the House of Representatives). [emphasis added]
Two Presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were both acquitted. Clinton: SENATE ACQUITS CLINTON - 55-45 "NOT GUILTY" VOTE ON PERJURY; 50-50 ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. (Richard Nixon resigned after impeachment hearings against him started, though the House then voted without debate by 412-3 to "accept" the articles of impeachment passed by the Judiciary Committee.)
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

“The Impeachment Trial: The Senate acquits the president of both impeachment articles.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment

6. Resources.

American Bar Association. www.abanet.org

Cornell University, Legal Information Institute (LII). “LII Backgrounder on Impeachment.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

ImpeachPAC has an informative section called: Impeachment in the News, which lists Impeachment discussions. http://impeachpac.org/impeachment-news

Infoplease.com. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors:” A Short History of Impeachment.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

History Channel. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the White House.” http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/impeach/whthouse.html

Jurist, “The Law Professors’ Network.” Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online Resources, Impeachment Primers, Constitutional and Statutory Provisions on Impeachment, Impeachments in History [see also Impeachment Procedures/Senate Trial], Impeachment Procedures, US Supreme Court Cases on Impeachment, Censure Clinton Controversy, Academic Opinion, Public Opinion, Further Reading (Books and Articles). http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/impeach.htm

MotherJones.com. “Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline” (8/1/90 - 6/21/03).
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966).

Santa Monica College Library. “Impeachment” an introductory guide to the research process. http://library.smc.edu/research/topics/impeachment.htm

SourceWatch. “Efforts to initiate the impeachment of President George W. Bush.” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Efforts_to_initiate_the_impea...

Washington University Law Library. “Impeachment: Selected Resources Online and in Print,” General Information and Primary Resources. http://law.wustl.edu/Infores/Library/Guides/Impeach

Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

7. Bibliography.
[Excerpts are provided to encourage reading full articles and complete books.]

 Alterman, Eric. When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. Viking Books, 2004.
From Publishers Weekly: “Mendacity has increasingly become a journalistic touchstone for analyzing America's international relations. Alterman, best known as a columnist for the Nation and author of What Liberal Media? presents his case for what he calls four key lies U.S. presidents told world citizens during the 20th century.”

 Alterman, Eric, Mark J Green. The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. Viking Adult, 2004.
“Alterman and Green provide voluminous, detailed research and come at the case with the vigor of prosecuting attorneys certain of a defendant's guilt or maybe a pair of exceptionally ambitious graduate students ready to present a final dissertation. They contrast sections of Bush's public statements, especially campaign rhetoric, that seem to strike a centrist, conciliatory tone with evidence of his actions that veer hard right and contradict the very things he had said.” - Editorial Review, Amazon.com, John Moe.

 Anderson, Rocky. Interview with Democracy Now.
Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, participated in an event of June 25, 2007 in New York City calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/25/1421228

 Babington, Charles. “Democrats Won’t Try to Impeach President,” Washington Post, 5-12-06.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR200605...
“Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said…In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

 Baker, Peter. The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Scribner, September 18, 2000.
“The Breach is a refreshing departure from the daily onslaught of revelations, spin, and commentary that characterized the affair as it unfolded; it's a rigorously researched and extremely detailed account of what happened.” – Editorial review, Amazon.com, J. Riches.

 Baltimore Sun, editorial. “Liberties Lost,” 7-05-07.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24326
“The damage caused by terrorists on 9/11 begins to pale against the havoc wreaked upon America by America itself.”

 Bamford, James. A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies. Anchor; Reprint edition (May 10, 2005).
“For more than two decades James Bamford has been a noted investigative journalist focusing on intelligence gathering in the United States. He has testified as an expert witness on intelligence issues before committees of both the Senate and House of Representatives.” “In this hard-hitting expose, investigative journalist Bamford (The Puzzle Palace; Body of Secrets) paints a damning portrait of an incompetent and politicized intelligence community.” – Publishers Weekly.

 Baumgartner, Jody C. ed. and Naoko Kada (ed.) Checking Executive Power: Presidential Impeachment in Comparative Perspective. Praeger Paperback, October 30, 2003.
“The chief contributions of this collection of essays on presidential impeachment are threefold. First, its comparative perspective on presidential perspective brings insight into the promises and problems of presidential systems as an increasingly popular but difficult form of democratic governance. Second, its examination of impeachment from a decidedly political science perspective offers an important alternative to the legalistic perspective that dominates the literature on impeachment. Third, the volume brings to light limitations in the impeachment process as a means of deterring and punishing corruption in the executive branch...Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and graduate students of comparative politics or presidential studies.”– Choice.
“[T]hese essays are by no means a ringing endorsement for impeachment. Instead, they offer immensely useful insights into the limitations of impeachment as a check on presidential misconduct...undoubtedly helps sharpen our understanding of the utility of the different constitutional mechanisms around the world for handling presidential impeachment.”– Political Science Quarterly.

 Berger, Raoul. Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Harvard University Press, 2nd ed., 1999.
“Card Catalog: The little understood yet volcanic power of impeachment lodged in the Congress is dissected through history by the nation's leading legal scholar on the subject. Berger offers authoritative insight into ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ He sheds new light on whether impeachment is limited to indictable crimes, on whether there is jurisdiction to impeach for misconduct outside of office, and on whether impeachment must precede indictment.” [See I.F. Stone]

 Binion, Carla. “Impeachment: A Duty, Not an Option,” ConsortiumNews.com, 4-17-07.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/041607a.html
“George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deceived Congress and the American people into supporting their unlawful invasion of Iraq. Their abuse of power continues. They should be impeached, not for partisan reasons, but to maintain our constitutional system and to deter future leaders from abusing power.”

 Black, Charles. Impeachment: A Handbook. Yale University Press; Reissue edition, October 7, 1998.
Newsweek: "Black's survey is a dispassionate, invaluable beam of light. This everyman's guide to impeachment outlines the process leading to the removal of a president by Congress, places it in historical perspective, [and] discusses the conundrums that spring from it. It provides a major contribution to sanity in our government."

 Bonifaz, John.
Video: John Bonifaz's testimony at Conyers hearing on Iraq War (9-15-06?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIAeRO19DZ4&eurl
DVD: The Case for Impeachment: A DVD With John Bonifaz.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6663

_______“Impeachable Offenses,” TomPaine.com, May 7, 2004.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10176/view/print

_______Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush, Nation Books (2003). Book Description: “What happens when a president violates the U.S. Constitution, resulting in the deaths of thousands? In Warrior-King, public interest lawyer John Bonifaz argues passionately that Bush did just that when he launched a first-strike invasion of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.”

 Boyle, Francis A.
“Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush,” January 17, 2003. Boyle is Professor of Law, University of Illinois School of Law.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html
“It’s About the Rule of Law: Impeaching George W. Bush.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle07252003.html

 Boxer, Senator Barbara. “Senator says she's asked for opinions on Bush impeachment,” Rawstory.com, 12-20-05. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1220....
“In a release issued this evening, Boxer said she's asked "four presidential scholars" for their opinion on impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'”

 Byrd, Robert C. Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency. W. W. Norton & Company (July 2004).
Senator Robert Byrd, who first came to the U.S. Congress when Truman was president “bemoans what he sees as the erosion of constitutionally mandated separation of powers. While many of his objections are colored with a high degree of personal dudgeon over perceived disrespect for him and his branch of government, he uses well-reasoned legal and historical arguments to illustrate his concerns.” –Amazon editorial review, John Moe. Senator Byrd has served under 11 presidents. “Few combine his scholar's understanding of constitutional government with the experience gained in his nearly half-century of Senate tenure…To Byrd the Constitution's checks and balances and the powers of the legislative branch, including the power of the purse and the power to declare war, have kept America a safe and functioning democracy.” – Publishers Weekly. "Senator Byrd (D-WV) was the ONLY Senator who confronted this reckless dysfunctional presidency, delivering over 80 speeches against going to war on Iraq and other high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney Administration." – Robert D. Steele, Amazon.com reviewer.

_______ We Stand Passively Mute. Papyngay Press (July 2004). This volume contains some 27 of Robert Byrd's Senate speeches spanning the period from the debate on the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002 to April 2004 - the first anniversary of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing.

 Center for Constitutional Rights. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush. Melville House
Publishing; 1st edition (March 1, 2006)
“In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more widely. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: There has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon…[T]he Center for Constitutional Rights, sets out the legal arguments for impeachment detailing four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution's separation of powers. It is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence. The book also contains the relevant laws and legal precedents. It explains what the Constitution says about impeachment and gives a brief history of impeachment, its procedures, and previous articles of impeachment against presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.” – Book Description.

_______“Excerpt: Articles of Impeachment,” AlterNet, March 6, 2006. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, Melville House, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/story/32866/

 Cohn, Marjorie. (Foreword, Richard Falk) Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law,
Polipoint Press (June 28, 2007).
“In Cowboy Republic, Marjorie Cohn offers a penetrating analysis of the six most important ways in which the Bush administration has weakened the rule of law. Cohn, a respected legal scholar, details the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq; the policy of torture; war crimes; Guantanamo’s kangaroo courts; unconstitutional laws; and the unlawful surveillance of American citizens. She concludes with practical ways to strengthen the rule of law domestically and internationally, including both political and legal remedies.” - Book Description.

 Cole, David. “The Constitution,” part of a collection: “Undoing Bush: how to repair eight years of sabotage, bungling, and neglect.” Harper’s Magazine, June 2007.
“The Constitution at the end of Bush’s two terms is much the worse for wear,” says Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. His next book: Less Safe, Less Free: The Failure orf Preemption in the War on Terror, to be published later this year.

 Conyers, John Jr. NOTE: “In November 1983, Rep. John Conyers and six other Democrats introduced a resolution to impeach President Reagan for his decision to invade Grenada…Conyers has spent the last several years carefully assembling a case for removing the president. His most recent effort was a 350-page report, released in August [2006], entitled, “The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.” The report never mentioned the word “impeachment,” but Conyers made it clear that he believes the president has committed several impeachable offenses.” - Byron York. “Is Impeachment Really “Off the Table?” National Review. 10-24-06.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc0NWYwOTlhMTFmNjBjN2MwZmUzNWIzY2MwMzhlYjM]

_______ George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying. Academy Chicago Publishers (September 1, 2006). “The staff of Representative Conyers have done a great job. They detail with 1395 footnotes most of the lies and deceptions used by the current administration on a select number of topics.” – Amazon.com reviewer. To download report: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

_______ “No Rush to Impeachment,” Washington Post, 5-18-06. [A23]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR200605...
“As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials. But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions.”
“Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration’s misconduct,” Conyers wrote on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites the day the report was released. “The report…compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation’s laws, and the Constitution itself.”
Conyers’ accusations were quite specific. On the war in Iraq, for example, he accused Bush of violating four laws: Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371); Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001); War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148); and Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301).

_________, “The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible Impeachment,” 12-20-05. Cross posted at Huffington Post and Daily Kos. http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000328.htm

Interview with. “John Conyers Talks about Bush Lying,” Buzzflash Interviews, 6-09-05.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/06/int05023.html

 Corn, David. “Impeachable Strategy,” TomPaine, 3-15-06. http://www.tompaine.com/print/impeachable_strategy.php
“Calling for impeachment—given the history noted above (and most everything we know about human nature and politics)—cannot escape the obvious slap-down: impeachment is a dream; it is so far-fetched a prospect that it raises questions about the sensibility and political judgment of anyone who suggests it be adopted as a real-life goal. A debating point, perhaps—but not an operating premise.
A possible reply to this slap-down is that other political movements that were fueled by high-minded principles, not pragmatism, did manage to succeed against the odds—the civil rights movement, the movement against the Vietnam War—and that those who accept the limits of conventional thinking condemn themselves (and others) to the status quo.
But—let's be real—those movements took years to gain momentum…[Bush] will be out of the White House in thirty-four months [as of 7-4-07, 18 months]. Yes, that is plenty of time in which additional damage can be done. But it's not much time for changing the fundamental political consciousness of the nation—and, more importantly, that of Congress.”

_______ The Lies of George W. Bush. Three Rivers Press (May 25, 2004).
“The longtime editor of the Nation, Corn sets out to build a serious case against Bush in which the president's own words indict him. Beginning with the 2000 campaign ("I am a uniter, not a divider"), Corn examines Bush's record on many issues--the environment, health, the war on terror--all referenced to the president's words, e.g., "The bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage [tax] cuts." Obviously, how one views the Bush presidency will color one's reaction to the conclusions drawn here, and though Corn sources much of his material within the text, it is too bad there are no notes appended…This is a judicious and readable offering, but the target audience may feel they've heard it all before.” - Booklist, Ilene Cooper

 Crisis Papers.com. “Impeachment,” lists several articles on impeachment.
http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/impeachment.htm

 Dean, John W.
“Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President: Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?” Findlaw.com, 12-15-06. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html
“There is a well-organized and growing movement to impeach President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney…I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater…[But] Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton.
There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office. The Republican Congress shamed itself when it impeached and tried President William Jefferson Clinton. It was a repeat of what an earlier Republican Congress had done to President Andrew Johnson, following the Civil War. Both proceedings were politics at their ugliest.
Democrats, when they undertook to impeach Richard Nixon, moved very slowly, building bipartisan support for the undertaking. Nixon, of course, resigned, when it became apparent that the House had the votes to impeach and the Senate had the votes to convict, with his removal supported by Democrats and Republicans, and conservatives and liberals alike. Getting the necessary two-thirds supermajority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible.
With forty-nine senators of the 110th Congress members in good standing with the Republican Party, and most of them rock-ribbed conservatives, even if the House produced evidence of Cheney personally water-boarding "Gitmo" detainees in the basement of his home at the Naval Observatory, with Bush looking on approvingly, there are more than thirty-three GOP Senators who still would not vote to convict…Pelosi and Reid have long understood this reality, and rather than do to Bush and/or Cheney what Republicans did to Clinton - impeach him in the House merely because they had the power to do so and they wanted to tarnish him, only to lose their battle decisively in the Senate - they are simply not going to play the same game. Politically, this is smart. Americans do not want another impeachment, particularly when Bush and Cheney will be out of office in January 2009.”

_______Testimony of John W. Dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding Senator Feingold’s Proposed Senate Resolution 398 Relating To the Censure of George W. Bush, March 31, 2006
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Testimony_of_John_Dean_on_censure_0331...

_______Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (Paperback) Grand Central Publishing; Reprint edition (April 18, 2005). Pg. 155: "The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." “In Dean's estimation, the secrecy with which Bush and Dick Cheney govern is not merely a preferred system of management but an obsessive strategy meant to conceal a deeply troubling agenda of corporate favoritism and a dramatic growth in unchecked power for the executive branch that put at risk the lives of American citizens, civil liberties, and the Constitution.” – Editorial Review, Amazon.com.

_______ Published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by NOW with Bill Moyers Ex-Nixon Aide John Dean Tells Bill Moyers that Bush Should Be Impeached,” “NOW with Bill Moyers,” 4-02-04.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0402-16.htm
“Tonight on NOW with Bill Moyers , former counsel to President Nixon John Dean tells Bill Moyers that he believes the Bush Administration's secrecy and deception over the war with Iraq should result in impeachment.” The transcript of the complete interview with John Dean is available on the NOW with Bill Moyers Web site at www.pbs.org/now on Monday, April 5, 2004.

_______ “The Case for Impeachment,” Findlaw.com, posted on Alternet.org, June 11, 2003.
“It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.
Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war.” Good list of Bush quotations in chronological order. http://www.alternet.org/story/16142/.

_______ “Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?’ Special to CNN. Com. 6-6-03. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
Mr. Dean compiled Bush's statements relative to the Iraq War, in chronological order, from September 12, 2002 – March 17, 2003 and includes them in this article.

_______“Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? FindLaw, June 6, 2003. http://writ.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

 De La Vega, Elizabeth. United States V. George W. Bush et al. Publisher: Seven Stories Press (November 30, 2006)
“By revisiting public statements, official documents and journalistic reports from the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, de la Vega builds a legal case that President Bush and top members of his administration engaged in a conspiracy to "deceive the American public and Congress into supporting the war." Drawing on her experience as a federal prosecutor, as well as the work of scholars and legal experts, she brings a well-honed legal perspective to the issue. She presents her argument in transcript form as a hypothetical weeklong presentation to a grand jury, including extensive testimony from three fictional investigative agents. Despite her somewhat specialized approach, the author clearly defines the legal terms and issues and avoids jargon.” – Publishers Weekly

Interview with Elizabeth de la Vega, “Elizabeth de la Vega’s Criminal indictment of George W. Bush Et Al,” Buzzflash, 12-05-06. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/044
“The very process of getting those subpoenas out there, getting witnesses out there, getting this evidence that we already have in the public record, into a hearing format, is essential. The more we can illuminate the truth, the more people are going to understand ... we have to have these hearings in Congress. That is what I’m advocating.” – Elizabeth de la Vega.

 Derkacz, Evan. “Impeaching Bush, State by State,” AlterNet, 4-26-06.
http://www.alternet.org/story/35467/ [I]mpeachment is spreading state by state.

 Dreyfuss, Robert and Jason Vest. “The Lie Factory,” MotherJones, January/February 2004. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
A Mother Jones Special Investigation. The inside story of how the Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war. [Includes an extremely helpful graphic: “The Intelligence Chain.” See resources: Mother Jones chron.]

 Dubose, Lou, Jake Bernstein, Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, Random House (October 17, 2006)
“Dubose and Bernstein show in this thorough, rollicking career biography that it's Cheney-not the more publicly criticized Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice or President Bush-who is chiefly responsible for the most unpopular aspects of the Bush regime: an imperial executive office and foreign policy; abandonment of democratic ideals (respect for government checks and balances, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights and the Freedom of Information Act); and questionable corporate-government collusion (the secret energy task force, Halliburton's government contracts in Iraq).” – Publishers Weekly.
"Absolutely extraordinary documentation--my review provides a list of 23 separate high crimes and misdemeanors discussed by the author." – Robert D. Steele, Amazon.com customer reviewer. Mr. Steele’s review of this book on Amazon.com is well worth reading.

 Dyer, Peter. “Impeachment: America Must Decide,” ConsortiumNews.com, 11-24-06.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/112406a.html

_______ “Review of 'Case for Impeachment,’ ” ConsortiumNews.com, 9-13-06.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/091306b.html

 Edwards, Mickey. “Lawyers Challenge Bush,” The Nation, 7-31-06.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/edwards
“For millions of Americans, liberal and conservative, the battles over Bush Administration policies, from the war in Iraq to the shape of the federal tax code, revolve around questions of political ideology or partisan preferences. For many others, the central issue is not the Administration's policies but its competence. For the American Bar Association, and for some other organizations as well, including the Washington-based Constitution Project, the matter is much simpler: It's a question of legality.
It was this concern--whether or not the President of the United States was involved in a systematic attempt to evade the law--that prompted both the ABA and the Constitution Project to appoint special bipartisan task forces (I'm a member of both) to look into the extraordinary ways in which the President has turned to the use of presidential signing statements not only to signal his disagreement with Congressional actions but to make clear his intent to disregard them.”

 Enrich, David. “Impeaching Bush” - Congressional Dems ready to avenge, National Review, March 6, 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich030603.asp

 Ferrechio, Susan. “Pelosi: Bush Impeachment ‘Off the Table,’ ” New York Times, 11-8-06.
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html
“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship.”- Pelosi.

 Ford, Glen. “If Bush-Cheney Can’t Be Impeached, Nobody Can,” BlackAgendaReport.com, 6-20-07.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...
“By allowing the opportunity to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney to slip away, Democratic Leadership - and the ineffectual Congressional Black Caucus - are complicit in the death of the rule of law in the United States. There is hardly a law that has not been broken by the Bush gang in their six-year crime spree - a massive criminal conspiracy that began with the theft of the 2000 election and continues with impunity under a Democratic Congress. The Black Caucus, whose constituents would support impeachment "in an instant," tremble like Chihuahuas under the gaze of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

 Frei, Jan. “Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?” AlterNet, 7-7-07.
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national psyche is awesome to behold. While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime. From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, U.S.-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, blood-soaked atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior."

 Froomkin, Dan. “The Method to Cheney's Madness,” Special to Washingtonpost.com, 6-22-07.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/22/BL200706220... On issue of classified information.
“Why, in 2003, did Vice President Cheney suddenly become so dead-set against reporting how his office handled government secrets? Cheney's refusal to abide by reporting requirements that apply to everyone else in the Bush administration -- and the audacity of his excuse, that because he is also president of the Senate, his office is not really within the executive branch -- led to a bunch of unflattering front-page headlines this morning.
But let's assume there's a method to his madness. Perhaps Cheney is rejecting this oversight because he doesn't want people to know what he and his aides have been doing with classified information. Or perhaps he believes in principle that he shouldn't be subject to constraints that apply to others in the executive branch. Maybe both. I'm betting on both. http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11562

 Fritz, Ben, Bryan Keefer, Brendan Nyhan. All the President’s Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth. Touchstone, August 3, 2004.
Amazon.com: “It's no shock that an American president would employ skilled PR pros to carefully hone a message that makes the administration's objectives more palatable to the general public. It's a tradition that dates back decades. But it's another matter entirely to base an entire presidency on the bending, twisting, and distorting of the truth.”

 Gerhardt, Michael. The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis,
University Of Chicago Press; 2nd edition (June 15, 2000).
“Debates about impeachment in the United States are older than the Constitution itself,” states constitutional law scholar Gerhardt. He shows that impeachment “is an inherently political process designed to expose and remedy political crimes. Subject neither to judicial review nor to presidential veto, it is a unique congressional power that involves both political and constitutional considerations, including the gravity of the offense charged, the harm to the constitutional order, and the link between an official's misconduct and duties. “- Book Description. “This book is the best and most thorough work done to date on the subject and will be the starting point for future studies.” – Perspectives on Political Science.

 Goldberg, Michelle. “The I-word goes public,” Salon, 3-03-06.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/03/impeachment/print.html
A summary of the building of the Impeachment momentum and the March 2, 2006 Impeachment Forum in New York. “Following revelations of Bush's domestic spying program -- and the president's unrepentant insistence on continuing it -- former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called for the creation of a select committee to investigate "those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment."

 Goodman, William H.
_______“Impeachment Talk Reaches the Mainstream,” AlterNet, March 14, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/33373/

_______Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, Melville House Publishing, 2006
“Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, makes the case for impeaching President Bush for illegally spying on U.S. citizens, lying to the American people about the Iraq war, seizing undue executive power, and sending people to be tortured overseas.” Available from the Center for Constitutional Rights. www.ccr-ny.org/impeachment/

_______“Is there really a legal case against George W. Bush?” 2-21-06.
http://www.mhpbooks.com/aoi.html In these highly-charged political times, it is the word that dare not speak its name: impeachment…But the startling revelation of the President’s warrantless wiretapping campaign may be the straw that broke the camel's back: In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more openly. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: there has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon…Michael Ratner, Bill Goodman and other experts at one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, set out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion. In four separate articles of impeachment detailing four separate charges –warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers – it is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.”

 Graham, Bob, Jeff Nussbaum. Intelligence Matters, Random House (September 7, 2004)
“In this explosive, controversial, and profoundly alarming insider’s report, Senator Bob Graham reveals faults in America’s national security network severe enough to raise fundamental questions about the competence and honesty of public officials in the CIA, the FBI, and the White House. For ten years, Senator Graham served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he had access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.” “I spent an entire night reading this one. It simply boggles the imagination. I can't think of another sitting senator who's ever written such a book. Graham, who has served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 10 years and chaired it for 18 months, contends that there's a Saudi Arabian connection to 9/11 that the Bush White House is deliberately concealing.” - Amazon.com reviewer.

 Green, David Michael. “HC–9: Where the Case for Impeachment Slipped into Gear.” CommonDreams.org, June 22, 2005.
“The Democratic Party has more or less been lost in the wilderness since Reagan showed up in 1980. Conyers is showing the way back.” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0622-33.htm

 Greenwald, Glenn.
Rod Dreher: "Hadn't the hippies tried to tell my generation this?” UnclaimedTerritory blog, 1-13-07. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/rod-dreher-hadnt-hippies-trie...
“Rod Dreher is as conservative as it gets -- a contributor to National Review and the Corner, a current columnist for The Dallas Morning News, a self-described "practicing Christian and political conservative." Today, Dreher has an extraordinary (oral) essay at NPR in which he recounts how the conduct of President Bush (for whom he voted twice) in the Iraq War (which he supported) is causing him to question, really to abandon, the core political beliefs he has held since childhood.”

_______How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok, Working Assets Publishing (May 15, 2006). Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney, and author of the political blog, "Unclaimed Territory."
“How Would a Patriot Act? is one man’s story of being galvanized into action to defend America’s founding principles, and a reasoned argument for what must be done. Greenwald’s penetrating words should inspire a nation to defend the Constitution from a president who secretly bestowed upon himself the powers of a monarch. If we are to remain a constitutional republic, Greenwald writes, we cannot abide radical theories of executive power, which are transforming the very core of our national character, and moving us from democracy toward despotism. This is not hyperbole. This is the crisis all Americans--liberals and conservatives--now face. - Product Description. Amazon customer reviewer, Robert D. Steele: “On page 79 the author says, after a lengthy discussion, that "the president possesses the power neither to make laws nor to interpret them.” [This book combines] “constitutional law with common sense and true patriotism." – Amazon.com reviewer.

 Hazelkorn, Bud. “A Call for Impeachment,” Oped News, 7-05-07. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bud_haze_070703_a_call_for_impea...
“Little did voters realize last November, when electing a Democratic majority to stand up to the most reckless Administration in US history, that party leaders had their own agenda. The Democratic Party agenda was to play it safe and wait for Bush and Cheney to lose Iraq so resoundingly that Republicans would ditch their party in droves. The Democratic agenda was to capture the center and hold it indefinitely. They didn’t mind the war lasting another two years, they just didn’t want to be the ones to lose it… Meanwhile, waiting may well backfire and make it a much closer ’08 race than they’d planned. After the appropriations fumble, one could hear disappointed minds all over the country slamming shut to the Democratic ‘difference’…Given that and the Democrats’ refusal to consider impeachment, save for Dennis Kucinich’s cry in the wilderness, what’s left for the movement? Mass action is what. The grassroots has to take it on and force Congress to take it up. Toward that end, a coalition of antiwar groups across the country is organizing a series of events for this summer, culminating on September 11.
On June 21, a “March of the People” will start from Chicago for an 800-mile trek to Washington. World Can’t Wait is staging ad hoc meetings around the country and a National Youth Conference in San Francisco to kick off next week. Meanwhile, we at Impeach9ll and the District 9 Impeachment Coalition are organizing mass rallies around the country… While the Democrats warn what could happen if we impeach, we are far worse off if we don’t.”

 Hersh, Seymour. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. HarperCollins (September 13, 2004).
“Seymour Hersh has been a legendary investigative reporter since 1969 when he broke the My Lai story in Vietnam. His considerable skill and well-placed sources inside the government, intelligence community, military, and the diplomatic corps have allowed him access to a wide range of information unavailable to most reporters. Chain of Command is packed with specific details and thoughtful analysis of events since the attacks of September 11, 2001, including intelligence failures prior to 9/11; postwar planning regarding Afghanistan and Iraq; the corruption of the Saudi family; Pakistan's nuclear program, which spread nuclear technology via the black market (and admitted as such); influence peddling at the highest levels; and the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, among other topics.” – Editorial review, Amazon.com
Pulitzer Prize-winning Hersh “charges the Bush administration with being propelled by ideology and hamstrung by incompetence in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. One former intelligence official observes that the Bush administration staffers behaved ‘as if they were on a mission from God,’ while another laments, ‘The guys at the top are as ignorant as they could be.’ "- Publishers Weekly.

______ “Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?” The New Yorker, 5-10-04. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact
“Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.”

 Hibbitts, Bernard J. “More Than 430 Law Professors Send Letter to Congress Opposing Impeachment,” Jurist, 11-6-98. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/petit1.htm
“More than 430 law professors from across the country have signed a letter to Congress arguing that the charges made against President Clinton do not warrant impeaching him… the law professors signing the letter say that the allegations made against the President by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr fall short of the legal standard set for impeachment. At the end of a detailed analysis of the ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ test laid down in the Constitution, they conclude that ‘short of heinous criminality, impeachment demands convincing evidence of grossly derelict exercise of official authority.’ ”

 Hoffer, Peter C., and N.E. H. Hull. Impeachment in America, 1635-1805. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
“The chief contributions of this collection of essays on presidential impeachment are threefold. First, its comparative perspective on presidential perspective brings insight into the promises and problems of presidential systems as an increasingly popular but difficult form of democratic governance. Second, its examination of impeachment from a decidedly political science perspective offers an important alternative to the legalistic perspective that dominates the literature on impeachment. Third, the volume brings to light limitations in the impeachment process as a means of deterring and punishing corruption in the executive branch...Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and graduate students of comparative politics or presidential studies.”– Choice.

 Holtzman, Elizabeth, Cynthia L. Cooper. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, Nation Books; 1 edition (August 22, 2006).
“Holtzman, former congresswoman and Brooklyn D.A. [and member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Impeachment], and Cooper, a journalist and lawyer, have assembled a compact but thorough legal and constitutional accounting of five major issues upon which they claim the current president could be impeached. They are "Deceptions into Taking the Country into War in Iraq"; "Reckless Indifference to Human Life in Katrina and Iraq"; "Illegal Wiretapping and Surveillance of Americans"; "Permitting Torture"; and "Leaking Classified Information." While the authors have a clear political agenda, their book also provides a useful guide to the theory behind and the legal mechanisms of presidential impeachment, clearing up many misunderstandings readers might have, such as the fact that "high crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes" and the correct use of the Independent Counsel Act (which Holtzman helped author in 1978).” – Publisher’s Weekly.

 Holtzman, Elizabeth. “Impeachment: The Case in Favor,” The Nation, 2-12-07. [See Levinson] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/holtzman
“Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power… If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.”

_______ “The Impeachment of George W. Bush,” The Nation, 1-30-06.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
“Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.”

 Impeach Bush. “Support for impeachment growing…in new places,” Impeach Bush, VotetoImpeach.org. 5-31-07.
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5195&security=...
“The people have spoken, but Congress has failed to answer. When push came to shove, the Democratic party establishment decided to fund the war effort without condition. Their decision is in direct contradiction with the majority of the country, which is against the war and the Bush administration by a large and ever-growing margin. But rather than be turned away, that majority has decidedly stepped up to the plate. Just over the last month, the impeachment movement and antiwar movement have expanded their organizing efforts and increased their visibility.”

 International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States. "Verdict and Findings of Fact,”
This report looks at five major international crimes; overlaps significantly with most lists of impeachable offenses. Can be purchased for $10 but full text is available at the link provided. If access a problem, See listing: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16473

 Isikoff, Michael, David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Three Rivers Press; Reprint edition (May 29, 2007).
The Washington Post’s Book World review of this book provides a helpful summary of the story of the file of documents from the U.S. embassy in Rome that arrived on the desk of one of the State Department's senior nuclear proliferation analysts in October 2002.

 Johnson, Chalmers. “Evil Empire. Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?” TomDispatch, 5-15-07. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174784/chalmers_johnson_ending_the_empire
“According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released on April 26, 2007, some 78% of Americans believe their country to be headed in the wrong direction…Even though large numbers of voters vaguely suspect that the failings of the political system itself led the country into its current crisis, most evidently expect the system to perform a course correction more or less automatically. As Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported, by the end of March 2007, at least 280,000 American citizens had already contributed some $113.6 million to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, or John McCain. If these people actually believe a presidential election a year-and-a-half from now will significantly alter how the country is run, they have almost surely wasted their money. As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances...The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them.”

 Jordan, Barbara (1936-1996). Statement at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Hearings, Washington, D.C. – July 25, 1974. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/sayitplain/bjordan.html
Read, hear (audio link provided) the unforgettable Barbara Jordan’s unforgettable speech. Barbara Jordan was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (D-Texas), and served from 1973 to 1979. She was the first black woman from a southern state to serve in the House.
“An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.
"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men." And that's what we are talking about.”

 Kingsley, Thomas. The Federal Impeachment Process: A Bibliographic Guide to English and American Precedence, Cornell University Libraries (1974).

 Labovitz, John R. Presidential Impeachment. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978.
Reviewer: “This book was written just after Congress's experience with President Nixon and contains much that was learned then. Indeed, in the acknowledgements, researcher's Hillary Rodham and Bernard Nussbaum are thanked for their helpfulness.”

 Lapham, Lewis H. “The Case for Impeachment, Harper’s Magazine, January 2007. [Harper’s is available to subscribers only. Daily Kos (ybruti) provided Lapham article: www.dailykos.com]. Go to: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16473
“In the January 2007 Harper’s, former editor Lewis Lapham takes aim at Nancy Pelosi’s "impeachment is off the table." Nor does he like Robert Reich's "it would be far better if Democrats used their newfound power to lay out a new agenda for America. There’s no point digging up more dirt."
Instead, Lapham argues: Democracy is born in dirt, nourished by the digging up and turning over of as much of it as can be brought within reach of a television camera or a subpoena. We can’t "lay out a new agenda for America" unless we know which America we’re talking about, the one that embodies the freedoms of a sovereign people or the one made to fit the requirements of a totalitarian state....
Like it or not, and no matter how unpleasant or impolitic the proceedings, the spirit of the law doesn’t allow the luxury of fastidious silence or discreet abstention...
The Constitution doesn’t serve at the pleasure of Representative Pelosi any more than it answers to the whim of President Bush, and by taking "off the table" the mess of an impeachment proceeding, the lady from California joins the president in his distaste for such an unclean thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

_______ “The Case for Impeachment, “Harper’s Magazine, March 2006. [Harper’s is available to subscribers only. Go to http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/18010]
See Amanda Witherell (San Francisco Guardian) Lapham Interview. “Overcoming the national stupidity: Lewis Lapham talks with the Guardian about politics, war, and where we go from here,” http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1821&catid=4 “Lapham likes impeachment, not President Pelosi.” 10-10-06. http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=1820

NOTE: “Is There a Case for Impeachment?” A public forum was presented by Harper’s Magazine, 3-2-06, moderated by Sam Seder, featured: Representative John Conyers Jr., John Dean, Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, Lewis Lapham, and Michael Ratner, held March 2, 2006 at Town Hall in New York City.
See VIDEO: Broadcast 03/02/06 C-Span http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12318.htm

 Levinson, Sanford. “Impeachment: The Case Against,” the Nation, 2-12-07. [See Holtzman] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/levinson
“It would be wonderful to evict George W. Bush--quite possibly the worst President in our entire history--from the White House. Thus one can readily understand the temptation to talk about impeaching him. But we should recognize that this conversation is triggered not only by Bush's own performance as President but also, and perhaps more important, by one of the greatest defects of the Constitution, the impeachment clause. Thanks to the Founders, we were given a Constitution that perversely makes us "better off" with a criminal in the White House instead of someone who is "merely" grotesquely incompetent. The reason is that the Constitution provides us with a language to get rid of a criminal President, but it provides us no language, or process, for terminating the tenure of an incompetent one. Unfortunately, this was a deliberate decision by the Framers, who rejected an altogether sensible proposal to make "maladministration" an impeachable offense for fear that this would give Congress too much power.”

 Lindorff, Dave. Go to his website: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/]

_______“New Poll: Majority Favor Impeachment (And BTW, Independents Aren't `In the Middle' at All,” This Can’t Be Happening, 7-07-07. http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
“The latest poll by American Research Group, showing that 54 percent of Americans favor impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, and that 46 percent favor impeaching President Bush, is encouraging news for impeachment advocates. Despite a corporate media blackout on impeachment that means almost nobody in the country knows that there is already a Cheney impeachment bill in the House with 14 co-sponsors (HR 333), over half the country nonetheless wants Cheney to get the boot.
And despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that “impeachment is off the table,” almost half the people in the country say they want the president impeached.
But other information in this scientific poll, which was conducted by random telephone calls to 1100 Americans during July 2-3, should have Democrats like Pelosi and other party leaders rethinking their obstructive position on impeachment.”

_______“Forget About a Senate Trial; Impeachment is its own Punishment,” ThisCan’tBeHappening, 7-6-07. http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
“I’m getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can’t be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes. Let’s get something straight: Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority. Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate. When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.”

_______ “Pelosi's Sinking Fortunes.” Created 7-04-07. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org.
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took power in the House of Representatives in January on a wave of public enthusiasm and hopes that Congress would finally start holding the president to account.
Not quite six months out, it's becoming apparent to Democrats who were looking to her for leadership that she's not about leading an opposition party; she's about posturing and hoping for better days in 2008, but not much else.
Californians voted for Democrats in Congress because they wanted to end the Iraq War, and because they were, and are, fed up with the anti-democratic antics of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Pelosi's own California Democratic Party Convention recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on her and the Congress to impeach the president--something that Pelosi stubbornly refuses to allow to happen.”

_______“Why Nancy Pelosi is Wrong,” CounterPunch, 10-27/29-06
“Forget Her "Pledge" Not to Impeach, She Took an Oath to Defend the Constitution.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/pelosi10272006.html
“What [Leslie] Stahl should have asked Pelosi was whether she thought that President Bush had violated the law and the Constitution, and whether she believed he has committed impeachable offenses. The answer to that is clearly yes.”

_______The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office. Thomas Dunne Books, May 2006. http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/ Says a frequent Amazon.com reviewer: “this is the single best reference.”

 Lindorff, Dave, Barbara Olshansky. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, St. Martin's Griffin (May 29, 2007).
Book Description: “It’s time to act—and this is the guide. Now in paperback to meet a rising public demand, here is a hard-hitting argument for the impeachment of George W. Bush—and top members of his administration. Events since the book’s hardcover release—including court decisions regarding war crimes and violations of the FISA law on wiretapping—have only heightened the urgency.
Methodically detailing the Bush regime’s offenses and refuting its lies and deceptions, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff and constitutional rights specialist Barbara Olshansky explain why the president and his inner circle should be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Among the most grievous harms:

• misleading the nation into war
• authorizing and encouraging the use of torture
• failing in almost every way to defend the homeland and our borders
• undermining habeas corpus and other traditional rights
• illegal NSA wiretapping, mail opening, and other assaults on the Bill of Rights
• the catastrophic federal failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina

 Loo, Dennis, Peter Phillips, Howard Zinn. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney. Seven Stories Press 1st Ed edition (October 2006).
Book Description: "An airtight case for impeaching Bush and Cheney for war crimes and domestic malfeasance. It's high time for legal regime change!" - Marjorie Cohn, President-elect, National Lawyers Guild. "An eye-opening, multi-layered indictment of the lawless rule of the Bush White House reactionaries. A well-edited, well-substantiated, an dwell-argued offering of hard-hitting truths that can serve as a manual for political action."-Michael Parenti, author of The Culture Struggle and Superpatriotism.

 MacArthur, John R. “Impeach Bush Now,” CommonDreams.org, October 9, 2003. http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views03/1009-06.htm
“Indeed, the genius of James Madison and his colleagues lay not so much in their literal specificity, but in their deliberate ambiguity…. Those who imagine there might be some "strict constructionist" guide to launching an impeachment should consider Alexander Hamilton's elucidation of the Senate's purview in the event of an impeachment trial.”

 McGovern, Ray. “Unimpeachably Impeachable,” Consortiumnews.com, 7-2-07.
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/070207a.html
“Last week’s four-part Washington Post feature on Vice President Dick Cheney removed any doubt in my mind as to whether he and President George W. Bush have committed the kinds of high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant impeachment. While President George W. Bush bears the ultimate responsibility, the nature of the evidence against Cheney and his closest associates is so specific and overwhelming that it makes sense to impeach and bring him to trial first… Subpoenas from Capitol Hill are flying downtown into executive office buildings like paper airplanes, but the potential for obfuscation and delay is immense, and the danger to the Republic speaks for a more urgent, simpler approach.”

 Bill Moyers Journal. “Tough Talk on Impeachment.” Bill Moyers talks with Bruce Fein and John Nichols. PBS 7-13-07. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
A video and transcript.
Video: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html
Bruce Fein: A constitutional scholar, Fein served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel for of the Federal Communications commission. He has been affiliated with conservative think tanks. Bruce Fein writes a weekly column for The Washington Times and Political.com.
John Nichols: Washington correspondent for The Nation, and an associate editor of the Capitol Times. Author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism.

 Nader, Ralph and Kevin Zeese. “The ‘I’ word. Boston Globe, May 31, 2005. [Good list of dates re WMDs, Iraq nuclear program.]
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05...

 Nichols, John.
“Bush’s move adds to impeachment push,” The Capital Times, 7-03-07.
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/200040
"In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney," announced [Jesse Jr.] Jackson. "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings."
The commutation of Libby's sentence and the president's refusal to comply with formal inquiries from the House and Senate on a number of matters "leave Democrats with no other option than to consider impeachment so that we can gather the information needed to achieve justice for all Americans," Jackson said.” Includes comments on James Madison and George Mason relative to Impeachment.

_______The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. New Press (October 30, 2006).
“Nichols rejects the view that impeachment is unrealistic in the course of surveying the history of the impeachment power, citing cases from England, commentaries about the U.S. Constitution, and the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. As if to deflect a charge of partisanship, Nichols extols Republicans who demanded Truman's impeachment, as well as Nixon's…Substantively slight on constitutional analysis of the war power, this work relies on its power-to-the-people persona for its appeal, which may extend past the moment should Democratic victory in the November elections augment the author's advocacy. – Booklist Editorial Review, Amazon.com

_______ “For Republic’s Sake, Pelosi Must Ponder Impeachment,” Madison (Wisconsin) Capital Times, 11-9-06. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1109-27.htm
“Is she fearful that challenging a president who is still popular with conservative voters will cause trouble at home? Spare me. Pelosi represents what may well be the most impeachment-friendly district in the country…Since it is impossible to imagine that the House Democratic leader honestly disagrees with the merits of calling the president and vice president to account - especially when, if seen through to its conclusion, the successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney could make her president - she must believe that impeachment is bad politics on the national scale. But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.”

_______ “Be bipartisan: Impeach Bush,” The Washington Monthly, December 2006.
“What decided this election more than any other factor, was the angry realization by a great many Americans that their president has lied to them about matters of war and peace, approved the warrantless wiretapping of their telephone conversations, and displayed a disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law unprecedented in the history of the American experiment. In other words, Democrats owe their electoral resurrection to a serious case of voters’ remorse with regard to President Bush. Because of this, House Democrats have an obligation to the American people to check and balance the executive branch. The best way to do that is to get serious about impeachment. Indeed, if they don’t, Democrats will suffer for disregarding not just their oaths of office, but also the will of the voters who entrusted them with the power to right the Republic. On this, the historical record is very clear: Holding the president to account is good for the country and good politics.”

 Olbermann, Keith. “Special Comment: You ceased to be the President of the United States,” Crooksandliars.com. Video, 7-03-07.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/03/keith-olbermanns-special-commen...

 Palast, Greg. Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans--Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, Plume; Reprint edition (April 24, 2007).
From Publishers Weekly: “Palast (The Best Democracy Money can Buy) is a refreshing, fearless witness to the American political landscape-and he doesn't really care whether or not you like him for it: "I am not a nice man. You want something heartwarming ... buy a puppy." Though Palast comes right out and calls George Bush II un-American ("'Greg, you have no respect for the office of the President.' No, I don't. Not one iota."), the author is not another TV or radio personality with an axe to grind. A former corporate fraud and racketeering investigator, Palast is an economist and investigative journalist, and his arguments are based on research and fact. At once scary, infuriating, fascinating and frustrating, this book covers almost all the controversial political territory of the new century (see the subtitle), including Hurricane Katrina. Palast believes that this crucial period has put every working citizen's rights at stake-"from the Wage and Hour Law's 40-hour week to the Clayton Antitrust Law"-and his well-reasoned outrage makes a convincing case. Unfortunately, Palast is short on solutions; the only actions he advocates are signing up at his web site and voting the bums out-even though, as Palast points out, Bush already "lost the election. TWICE."

_______ “Impeachment Time: ‘Facts Were Fixed.’ BuzzFlash, May 5, 2005. A fire-breathing journalist. http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=426

 Parry, Robert. “Is Impeachment the Answer?” ConsortiumNews, 11-01-05. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/103105.html
“The conventional wisdom – virtually across Washington’s political spectrum – is that the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is unthinkable, and without doubt, it would be extremely difficult to engineer. But a better answer to Americans interested in holding Bush and Cheney accountable is that impeachment is possible – if enough voters want it to happen.
Say, for instance, 75 percent of voters favored impeachment and considered it a decisive issue in how they will cast their ballots. Would politicians facing such a popular groundswell risk their own jobs to save Bush and Cheney?”

_______ “War or Impeachment,” Consortiumnews.com, June 28, 2005.
“An impeachment strategy would have two other benefits: it would create the framework for an official investigation into the deceptions that led the nation to war in 2002-2003 (as well as into the incompetence with which the war was fought) and it would offer a legal structure for achieving some accountability.
No accountability means that a precedent has been set for future presidents misleading the nation into other aggressive wars of choice and paying no price…While many liberals and Democrats reject an impeachment strategy – fearing that it would be too confrontational and carry too many political risks – there are dangers, too, in again trying to finesse the Iraq War, as Democrats did in the disastrous elections of 2002 and 2004.” http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/062805.html

_______ “The Impeachment Conspiracy,” ConsortiumNews, October 25, 1998.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1990s/consor34.htmlh
“By now, the Republican Right’s goal should be obvious: a power grab of historic proportions, the ouster of a twice-elected president for lying about his sex life. New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis grasped some of what was afoot. On Sept. 29, he wrote, “There is an effort under way to bring about a fundamental change in the political direction of this country, effectively changing the results of our last two national elections. It would be a coup d’etat.”
But what is under way is more than a coup d’etat. It is a change not just in leadership but in the American system of government. If a well-organized conservative apparatus can engineer a presidential impeachment for an offense so common, then a kind of political veto has been asserted -- no one to the left of George W. Bush need apply.”

 Parry, Robert, Sam Perry and Nat Parry. Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush. The Parrys are editors of Consortiumnews.com. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
“How did plutocrat George W. Bush come to lead the United States at the start of the 21st century - and how did he get away with using the 9/11 tragedy to overwhelm the constitutional safeguards that had protected the nation's liberties for more than two centuries? Neck Deep shows how this crime was committed and then lines up the suspects - aggressive Republicans, accommodating Democrats, abrasive pundits, careerist journalists - for an assessment of collective guilt.” The Parrys track the “extraordinary events” of the Bush years, including “revelations about his father’s secret dealings in the Middle East.”
The United States is at a dangerous crossroads. The Parrys ask whether the confused nation will continue on the route of a frightened people who depend on “a powerful Executive who promises them safety in exchange for their liberties.” The American people have an option: to make the U-turn away from fear and authoritarianism and back toward a Republic.

 Pitt, William Rivers. “Was Commuting Libby and Impeachable offense?” Truthout, 7-03-07. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070307R.shtml
“Like a thief in the night, George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He made no public appearance to announce the decision, but instead air-mailed a written statement after 5 p.m. at the outset of a midweek holiday. The statement praised Patrick Fitzgerald as "a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged." As for Libby himself, the statement noted that "the consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."
Not 24 hours later, Bush delivered a stammering, vacillating, nervous public statement defending his decision to commute Libby's prison sentence. During his statement, Bush made it clear that a full and complete pardon for Libby was still very much on the table.”

 Powell, Michael. “Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder,” Washington Post, 3-25-06.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR200603...
"The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo Bay detainees.” Washington Post, 3-25-06.

 Posner, Richard A. An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton. Harvard University Press: 1999. Richard Posner is a top-ranking member of the United States judiciary.

 Ratner, Michael. “Secret Military Tribunals, Mass Arrests and Disappearances, Wiretapping & Torture,”Counterpunch, 11-20-01. http://www.counterpunch.org/ratner5.html
“[R]ights that we thought embedded in the constitution and protected by international law are in serious jeopardy or have already been eliminated. It is no exaggeration to say we are moving toward a police state.”

 Raskin, Marcus and Joseph A. Vuckovich. “George W. Bush: Legal Arguments for Impeachment.” Institute for Policy Studies. [Undated! Appears to be 2006] http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/raskincase.htm
“This statement outlines the legal arguments for impeaching President Bush. The public policy grounds for impeachment (including the long-term effects of failure to hold the executive accountable for constitutional violations) are of equal significance, and we will discuss them in a separate statement.”

 Rich, Frank. The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. Penguin Press HC, The (September 19, 2006).
“This blistering j'accuse has vitriol to spare for George Bush—calling him a "spoiled brat" and "blowhard"—and his policies, but its main target is the PR machinery that promoted those policies to the American people. New York Times columnist Rich revisits nearly every Bush administration publicity gambit, including Iraqi WMD claims, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" triumph, the Swift-boating of John Kerry and the writing of fake prowar letters-to-the-editor from soldiers. He uncovers nothing new, but his meticulously researched recap-cum-debunking—complete with appended 80-page time line comparing administration spin to actual events—builds a comprehensive picture of a White House propaganda campaign to bamboozle the public, smear critics, camouflage policy disasters and win the 2002 and 2004 elections through trumped-up security anxieties.” – Publishers Weekly.

 Roberts, Paul Craig. “Impeach Bush Now, Before More Die,” Counterpunch, August 17, 2005. http://counterpunch.org/roberts09032005.html
“What will it take for Americans to reestablish accountability in their government? Bush has got away with lies and an illegal war of aggression, with outing CIA agents, with war crimes against Iraqi civilians, with the horrors of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo torture centers, and now with the destruction of New Orleans. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, eds.”

 Romero, Anthony D. “Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Curtain!” The Huffington Post, 7-4-07.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-d-romero/mr-bush-tear-down-that-_b...
“July 4th brings thoughts of fireworks, hot dogs, and cold beer, but as you see your ballparks and skylines light up tonight, take a minute to think about another July 4th tradition, the Freedom of Information Act. You might not know this piece of patriotic trivia, but FOIA has been in effect and lighting up our government for exactly 40 years today…But the fundamental argument is simple. In the words of President Johnson, "democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation will permit." In times of crisis, the government tends to use "national security" as an all-purpose excuse to prevent the release of embarrassing or politically damaging information.
This is not how it should be. Open government is free government.”

 Romney, Matthew R. “The Origins and Scope of Presidential Impeachment,” Hinckley Journal of Politics, The University of Utah, Spring 2000, Vol. 2 No. 1.
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/romney.htm

 Roychoudhuri, Onnesha. “Impeaching George W. Bush,” Alternet, 3-06-07.
http://www.alternet.org/story/32977/.
“You don't just win by lawsuits; you win by popular protest, people in the streets. That's the way you have to win. The Center really believes that our lawsuits are important and people have to be represented. We have to stop torture to the extent that we can. But there has to be popular protest in this country, or our lawsuits are not going to change anything.” – Michael Ratner.

________ “The People's Path to Impeachment,” AlterNet, 6-26-06. http://www.alternet.org/story/38042/
“On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:

‘Township supervisors and friends, I come here today not as a Republican or as a Democrat but as an American citizen concerned for our way of life. I hope that you can view this package not as a political statement but as a plan for the future … Rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow state and city legislatures to introduce resolutions. Our First Amendment guarantees any citizen, city, or state "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is what I ask you to do with this motion.’

Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that ‘there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another.’ “ Bronke was absolutely right.”

 Ruppert, Michael C. Catherine Austin Fitts (Foreword). Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers (October 2004).
“The attacks of September 11, 2001, were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies key suspects-finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government-by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result.” – Book Description. "Best book documenting all the reasons why Dick Cheney should be indicted and impeached with respect to his treasonous behavior around both secret energy policy and 9-11 "let it happen" and subsequent cover-up." – Amazon.com reviewer.

 Salon. “The I-word.” 6-09-05.
Ralph Nader says the Downing Street memo is grounds to debate the impeachment of the president. Four constitutional scholars weigh the issue: Mark Tushnet, Jack Rakove, Michael J. Gerhardt and Cass Sunstein. http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/06/09/impeachment/index....
Tushnet: “[W]e've been misled by our contemporary understanding of the words the Constitution uses to describe the preconditions for impeachment, having forgotten what those words meant when the Constitution was adopted.”
Rakove: “[T]he impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 set the bar for "high crimes and misdemeanors" so low that any subsequent president could legitimately worry about this generally moribund provision of our Constitution being deployed against him whenever an opposition party controlling Congress found it convenient to do so…[A] decision to initiate a war that depended on the calculated misrepresentation of information on the scale alleged against this administration plausibly falls within the unspecified category of "high crimes and misdemeanors…It is worth noting, though, that the framers adopted "high crimes and misdemeanors" only after they had first rejected George Mason's proposal to add "maladministration" to the list of impeachable offenses.”
Gerhardt: “Manipulating the impeachment process to undo electoral outcomes with which one disagrees is not the American way.”
Sunstein: [U]nder the Constitution, it is extremely difficult to make out legitimate grounds for impeachment. For almost all of the nation's history, public officials have respected this aspect of the constitutional plan. Political disagreements, however intense, have not turned into pleas for impeachment. On the contrary, our traditions, at least as much as our founding document, limit impeachment to the most large-scale abuses of public trust. The principal exception, of course, was the patently unconstitutional impeachment of President Clinton in 1998.”

 Savage, Charlie. “US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged Officials regarded some as advisory,” Boston Globe, 6-19-07.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/19/us_agen...
“Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers. In a report to Congress, the non partisan Government Accountability Office studied a small sample of the bill provisions that Bush has signed into law but also challenged with signing statements, The GAO found that agencies disobeyed six such laws, while enforcing 10 others as written even though Bush had challenged them.”

_______ “ABA urges halt to ‘signing statements,’ Presses protection of checks and balances. Boston Globe, 8-09-06.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/09/aba_urg...
“The American Bar Association's House of Delegates voted yesterday to call on President Bush and future presidents not to issue ‘signing statements’ that claim the power to bypass laws, and it urged Congress to pass legislation to help courts put a stop to the growing practice.”

__________“Group opposes loss of signing statements. Lawyers say issue is president's use.” Boston Globe, 8-5-06.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/05/group_o...
A group of former Clinton administration lawyers are urging the American Bar Association to reject its panel's call for presidents to stop issuing ``signing statements" that reserve the right to bypass laws, saying the problem is with President Bush's use of such statements, not the mechanism itself.
The ABA's 550-member House of Delegates will vote next week on endorsing a high-profile task force's conclusion that the Constitution gives presidents two choices: veto a bill, or sign it and enforce all of it. As the vote nears, several law professors who helped draft signing statements for President Clinton have emerged as critics of the task force's recommendations.

_______”Bar Group will review Bush’s legal challenges,” Boston Globe, 6—04-06.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/04/bar_gro...
“The board of governors of the American Bar Association voted unanimously yesterday to investigate whether President Bush has exceeded his constitutional authority in reserving the right to ignore more than 750 laws that have been enacted since he took office.”

_______“Bush challenges hundreds of laws. President cites powers of his office. Boston Globe, 4-30-06.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hu...
“President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”

 Scheer, Christopher. The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. Seven Stories Press, January 15, 2004.
From Publishers Weekly: “Setting out to prove that ‘every major assertion that our government put forward to justify the conquest of Iraq has proved false,’ this broadside (more akin to a long article than a short book) reviews the evidence (or lack thereof) for linking Iraq to al-Qaida and 9/11, and reveals what the authors say is the inflation of Iraq's weapons capabilities and the erroneous assumptions about how long the war would take. Even sympathetic liberals may find the description of ‘the losing end of a long war of attrition’ to be overstating the case. The concise account by veteran journalist Robert Scheer, his son and Chaudhry, editors of AlterNet.org, deftly incorporates dozens of other media sources, including very recent materials like Gerald Posner's Why America Slept.”

 Scheer, Robert. “A Firm Basis for Impeachment,” The Nation Online, July 15, 2003.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030721/scheer20030715

_______ “What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?” The Nation Online, June 17, 2003. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030630/scheer20030617

 Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. The Imperial Presidency (Paperback) Mariner Books; Reprint edition (August 12, 2004)
“The Imperial Presidency traces the growth of presidential power over two centuries, from George Washington to George W. Bush, examining how it has both served and harmed the Constitution and what Americans can do about it in years to come.” “Appropriately, it first discusses the Founding Fathers' likely intentions in regard to the Presidency and where they disagreed amongst themselves. Next it explains the Presidency and its war power, tracing its development through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, and paying special attention to the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. Most of a 64-page chapter is devoted to President Richard M. Nixon's radical ideas and practices. Democracy and foreign policy is then treated, followed by the Presidency and its powers of secrecy, and finally, the Presidency and its future.” – Amazon.com reviewer.

 Smith, Gene. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson. McGraw Hill, 1985.
“Gene Smith's treatment of the l868 impeachment and trial against President Andrew Johnson is beautifully written and presents fair, yet compelling portraits of all of the major players. In the wake of the most recent impeachment crisis concerning President Clinton, this book becomes more important than ever.”

 Solomon, Norman. “The Key To Impeachment,” TomPaine, June 1, 2005.
“If you think President Bush should be impeached, it's time to get serious. We're facing huge obstacles—and they have nothing to do with legal standards for impeachment. This is all about media and politics. Five months into 2005, the movement to impeach Bush is very small. And three enormous factors weigh against it: 1) Republicans control Congress. 2) Most congressional Democrats are routinely gutless. 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a war criminal.
For now, we can't end the GOP's majority. But we could proceed to light a fire under congressional Democrats.” http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050601/the_key_to_impeachment.php

 Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry. 1974. Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

 Stone, I.F. “A Special Supplement: Impeachment,” New York Review of Books, 6-23-73. Vol. 20, No.11. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9811 I.F. Stone review/essay relative to Raul Berger’s Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems and Michael Les Benedict’s The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson.
“The Federalist Papers explained that the new Constitution allowed for an exception to the doctrine of separation of powers. It provided for "a partial intermixture" in certain special cases. This was defended as ‘necessary to the mutual defense of the several members of the government against each other.’ So the President was given a veto over the legislature and the Congress the judicial power of impeachment as ‘an essential check…upon the encroachments of the executive.’ Impeachment was to be a "method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men," a way to try "the abuse or violation of some public trust.’
There are two reasons for seriously considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon. One is that this may prove the only kind of legal proceeding in which the President's complicity in the unfolding Watergate and related scandals may be fully and fairly determined. The other is that only so grave a step may deter a future President from the abuses charged against the Nixon White House.” [emphasis added]

 Suskind, Ron. The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. Simon & Schuster (June 20, 2006).
”In this troubling portrait of the war on terror, America's intelligence agencies confront not just al-Qaeda but the Bush administration's politicized incompetence.” – Publishers Weekly. "First book to actually itemize impeachable offenses by Dick Cheney, including the ursurpation of authority from the President without the President's knowledge." – Amazon.com reviewer.

 Tribe, Laurence. Laurence H. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor.
_______ “Bush Stomps on Fourth Amendment,” Boston Globe, 5-16-06.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0516-26.htm
“The escalating controversy over the National Security Agency's data mining program illustrates yet again how the Bush administration's intrusions on personal privacy based on a post-9/11 mantra of ''national security" directly threaten one of the enduring sources of that security: the Fourth Amendment ''right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

_______“A Conversation with Laurence Tribe about Impeachment.” “Charlie Rose,” PBS, 12-21-98. “A conversation with Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School about the impeachment process of President Clinton and its legitimacy in terms of constitutional law.”
http://69.60.10.20/shows/1998/12/21/1/a-conversation-with-laurence-tribe...

 Tribe, Laurence and Akhil Reed Amar. “Dialogues: The Independent Counsel,” Slate, 9-11-98.
http://www.slate.com/?id=3626
“…[T]he nonreviewability of a decision by the House or Senate as to what constitutes an impeachable offense is no excuse for saying that such an offense is whatever Congress wants it to be. On the contrary, the Impeachment Clause of Article II, Section 4, in saying that federal officials may be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," identifies a category of grave abuses of power that contrasts with "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace"--the offenses from which Article I, Section 6 withholds congressional arrest immunity--and with "Treason, Felony, or other Crime"--the offenses which give rise to a duty of interstate extradition under Article IV, Section 2.
That little-noted textual contrast, and the history of the Impeachment Clause from its roots in 14th century England to its drafting by the Constitutional Convention and its discussion in the ratification debates, points strongly to the conclusion that, with the exception of crimes so heinous as to render the wrongdoer unfit to be at large, and with the further exception of serious criminality in the effort to retain or expand one's official power, it is only the grossly abusive exploitation, whether criminal or not, of power held by virtue of one's office that identifies misconduct as a high crime and misdemeanor. To impeach a president for anything less than this sort of assault on our constitutional system, and especially to do so on the grounds that the president has lost the confidence of Congress (or perhaps of the people), is to take a radical step in the direction of a parliamentary (or even a plebiscitary) system that the Constitution conspicuously rejected.”

 Van Bergen, Jennifer. “Criminal Administration,” TomPaine, 8-11-06. http://www.tompaine.com/print/criminal_administration.php
Van Bergen, journalist with a law degree, talks about the Conyers Report, noting that: “While Byron York commented in the conservative National Review that the Conyers Report is the “Democrats’ Impeachment Map,” the Democrats have taken no action and do not seem inclined to do so. But the report is both less and more than an impeachment map. Impeachment does not put criminals in jail. Conyers’ report could.”

_______ “White House Behind Bars,” TomPaine, 8-03-06. http://www.tompaine.com/print/white_house_behind_bars.php
Van Bergen looks at how charges can be brought.

_______ The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan For America, Common Courage Press (September 15, 2004).
“In The Twilight of Democracy, Jennifer Van Bergen dissects the signs of something gone terribly wrong. A massive superstructure is being constructed, whose shape can be discerned by the 2000 election, the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the detentions at Guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq, the withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, the promotion of the FTAA, the eradication of environmental protections, and a policy of increasing secrecy.” – Book Description.

 Waldman, Paul. Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You. Sourcebooks: January 1, 2004.
From Publishers Weekly: “Building on tenets laid out in The Press Effect, which he coauthored with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Waldman deconstructs Bush's image as plainspoken, compassionate Dubya, and accuses the media of failing to properly scrutinize the values of his presidency. Bush's inarticulateness misleads a gullible public into perceiving the president as a "real," ordinary American, Waldman argues, contending that Bush's administration actually serves a business elite rather than the average American.”

 White, Theodore H. Breach of Faith: The Fall of Richard Nixon. Scribner; 1st edition, May 1, 1975.
Book Description: “The Nixon crisis of 1973-1974 threatened the nation in ways we did not immediately understand. Stripped of drama and confusion, however, the problem was that our President had placed himself above the law. The nation had to decide whether that could be allowed.”

 Witt, John Fabian. “A Declaration The President Ignores,” Washington Post, 7-04-07.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR200707...
“As we gather around picnic tables and backyard barbecues today, we should pause to consider a forgotten dimension of the occasion -- one that is as important now as it was on July 4, 1776. We all know that the Declaration of Independence announced the United States' freedom from the British Empire. We all remember that it declared certain truths to be self-evident. But what you probably haven't heard is that the declaration also advanced an idea about war. The idea was that war ought to be governed by law.”

 York, Byron. “Is Impeachment Really “Off the Table”?” Not if you look at what John Conyers has been doing. National Review. 10-24-06. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc0NWYwOTlhMTFmNjBjN2MwZmUzNWIzY2M...
“[A]ny one of Conyers’ specific accusations might serve as the basis for an impeachment resolution. In fact, rather than ask whether Conyers might move to impeach the president if Democrats win in November, it seems more reasonable to ask how Conyers could not move to impeach the president, given the long bill of particulars he has compiled.”

 Zeese, Kevin. “Inventing a Pretext for War,” DemocracyRising.US, 5-23-05.
“Interview with James Bamford: 'Intelligence was manipulated, mangled, ignored, and analysts were harassed and bullied to present the false picture that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.'”
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/226/164/

 Zeese, Kevin and Ralph Nader. “The Growing Case for a Resolution of Inquiry,” DemocracyRising.US, 6-13-05. http://democracyrising.us/content/view/245/164/
“It is becoming more evident that an impeachment inquiry is needed to determine whether the United States was plunged into war with Iraq based on manipulated intelligence and false information. Thus far the President and Vice President have artfully dodged the central question: "Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda terrorism and the danger Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

 Zinn, Howard. “Impeachment by the People,” The Progressive, 2-2007.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020107N.shtml
“Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation's capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about "unity" and "bipartisanship," in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.”

 Zogby International. “Mainstream Media Try to Hide the Impeachment Question,” 7-12-05. http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11562
Portions of an article by the Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin on the mainstream media failure to report on public support for Impeachment.

8. Special Focus: Cheney, Pelosi.

Dick Cheney:

Greenwald, Robert. “Impeaching Dick Cheney: The Tide is Turning [Video],” Alternet, 7-06-07.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56255/
“54% of Americans now support the removal of Cheney from office – we’re waking up to who has the real power in the White House.” [Watch Greenwald’s video “with the evidence for impeachment.”]

Tumulty, Karen. “The Washington Post’s Cheney Series,” Time-blog, 6-24-07.
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/06/the_washington_posts_cheney_serie...
The Washington Post today begins a four-part series on the extraordinary and unprecedented role that Dick Cheney has played as Vice President. There is plenty of new information in the first installment by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker. [Tumulty is Time’s National Political Correspondent based out of Washington, D.C.]

Gellman, Barton and Jo Becker. “ANGLER: The Cheney Vice Presidency,” The Washington Post, June 24-, 2007. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/
In this four-part series, The Washington Post presents “an in-depth investigation of the vice presidency of Dick Cheney, the most influential and powerful man ever to hold the office. The stories will examine Cheney's largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies for the War on Terror, the economy and the environment.” “This past week the Washington Post did an outstanding reporting job in detailing Vice President Cheney's role in the Bush Administration. I want to be sure that those of you who live "outside the beltway" have a chance to read them. The ramifications are breath-taking.” – Alice Germond, DNC Secretary.

Chapter I: Working in the Background: ‘A Different Understanding with the President.’ http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
Chapter II: Wars and Interrogation: Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_p...
Chapter III: Dominating Budget Decisions: A Strong Push from Backstage.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/a_strong_push_from_back_s...
Chapter IV: Environmental Policy: Leaving No Tracks.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html

Ruppert, Michael C. Catherine Austin Fitts (Foreword). Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers (October 2004).
“The attacks of September 11, 2001, were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies key suspects-finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government-by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result.” – Book Description. "Best book documenting all the reasons why Dick Cheney should be indicted and impeached with respect to his treasonous behavior around both secret energy policy and 9-11 "let it happen" and subsequent cover-up." – Amazon.com reviewer.

H. RES. 333. Congressman Dennis Kucinich submitted this resolution 4-24-07. The resolution which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: “Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to...”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333

http://www.kucinich .house.gov/ SpotlightIssues/ documents. htm
http://kucinich. Us

www.impeachcheney.org
www.impeachbush-cheney.com

Nancy Pelosi

Video and Transcript of House Speaker Pelosi from interview on “60 Minutes,” CBS, 10-22-06. Summary/excerpts: “Nancy Pelosi Two Heartbeats Away.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/20/60minutes/main2111089.shtml
Video: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pelosi_Impeachment_off_table_1023.html

Ferrechio, Susan. “Pelosi: Bush Impeachment ‘Off the Table,’ ” New York Times, 11-8-06.
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html
On June 28, 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a conversation with several bloggers, including Mike Stark of Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films (Outfoxed, Uncovered, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers). Go to: http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/3472-speaker-pelosi-on-the-war-impeachment... for “Speaker Pelosi on The War, Impeachment and Accountability.”

Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-0100.

9. Polls.

For up-to-date (and past) polls on impeachment, go to: www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling.

July 6, 2007: “A new poll conducted by http://www.americanresearchgroup.com finds that 54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including 76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans, and 50% of independents.

The poll also asked about Bush's commuting of I Lewis Scooter Libby's sentence, and found that 31% of Americans approve, and 11% would approve of a full pardon.” – Afterdowningstreet.org

See also: http://www.zogby.com/;http://www.pollingreport.com/

10. Websites.

http://www.afterdownstreet.org To take action: Contact the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and Ask for Impeachment of Cheney and Bush. Contact information for committee, Speaker Pelosi and members of Congress provided:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/judiciarycommittee
www.impeachbush.org
www.impeachcentral.com (running a petition drive)
www.impeachcheney.org
www.impeachpac.org
www.worldcantwait.net

Conyers, John Jr.:
www.Johnconyers.com
www.conyersblog.us.
http://www.house.gov/conyers/ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. Chairman: John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)

U.S. House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/
democrats.com, an independent community of Democratic activists.

11. Censure.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure
Censure is a congressional procedure for publicly reprimanding the President of the United States or a member of Congress for inappropriate behavior. When the president is censured, it serves merely as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency. Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the Constitution, or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. It derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members. To date the only sitting presidents to have been censured are Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, and James Buchanan.

Compiled by B.G. Bandler as a public service, July 20, 2007. Bandler’s public affairs professional career spans 35 years. She has a master’s degree in Public Administration and has been an activist with the League of Women Voters and Democrats Abroad. Contact: bbandler1938@yahoo.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Atty Oversight: Targeting For Disbarment WH Legal Counsel The states have an important role in overseeing the ethics enforcement of legal counsel. This is done through the State Atty Disciplinary boards. The WH and Congressional staff counsel complicit with these war crimes can be lawfully prosecuted. Nuremberg is precedent for prosecuting civilian legal counsel for their failure to prevent war crimes; or in drafting illegal memoranda. The RNC e-mail deletions appear to be related to effort of legal counsel to hide evidence they knew could not be hidden by privilege or within the WH e-mails.

Contract Management: State Role In Cancelling Illegal Contracts It is not lawful for state resources to be used to support an illegal dictatorship. Lawyers were involved with these illegal contracts to violate FISA; and which the President has left open the option to ignore the FISA court.

"the government’s position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses. Its AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and the rules of statutory construction. Finally, when faced with the clear wording of FISA and Title III that these statutes provide the “exclusive means” for the government to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the TSP was unlawful. Ref

State Role in Revoking State-Level Corporate Licenses

State officials regulate the contractors which have engaged in the illegal NSA violations. You can encourage the corporate governance boards in your state to open ivnestigations into the firms which have supported illegal activity.

State AG Litigation Against NSA Contractors

New Jersey's State AG has attempted to litigate the privacy violations of the its citizens. The DOJ has attempted to stifle this litigation. There is also ongoing litigation called "Multi-Jurisdication Litigation" on the NSA issues: Legal consel connected with AT&T are linked with the White House, and former WH Counsel.

Prosecutions

State Prosecution Option: Don't forget: A sitting President can be prosecuted outside impeachment, outside Congress by the State AGs. [Talk to Jonathan Turley at Georgetown U. how this is done.]

State Level Prosecutions of Members of CongressIf the President and Congress will not clash, but tell We the People to "wait for the next election" as Conyers did, time to put Prosecutions of Members of Congress on the table; and start prosecuting Pelosi and Conyers for 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations. Impeachment would ensure Cheney and Bush are denied pardons; and that prosecutions would occur without interruption.

State Pressure When Remind Congress of Legal Obligations

The duties of Members of Congress are clear: To use all lawful options to defend the Constitution. These are the issues which the States need to remind Members of Congress remain on the table:

State Role In Communicating Methods to Zero-Out Budgets It's possible to zero-out budgets on the war: Committees can mark up a bill and budget document, and require the GOP to pass an Amendment to add money back. No excuse for Pelosi to say, "We can't end this war."

War Crimes Precedent: Recall, Nuremberg reminded us: If nations neither impeach nor prosecute war criminals, they are not civilized. Time for the States to assert the powers of Amendment 10, and ensure the US government remains under Geneva and Rule of Law. Self-government must work, not explained away through inaction and neglect. The States are one of the vanguards of the Constitution.

Senate Vote Meaningless: House Impeachment Blocks Pardon of Bush and Cheney: The Senate decision during conviction phase is not relevant: House impeachment is all that is required for the President/VP to be denied a pardon, clearing the way for State AGs to prosecute outside Congress outside Impeachment. We don't have to wait for the President to block the US Atty's prosecutions.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.