• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

EXCLUSIVE: Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statutes, Dems Say

BBond

Diamond Member
Shades of things to come?

For the sake of what we used to know as "America", I certainly hope so.

EXCLUSIVE: Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statutes, Dems Say

By Justin Rood - July 31, 2006, 1:53 PM

The Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations -- some of them multiple times -- according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats.

"The misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread," reads a draft summary of the report by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI):

The laws implicated by the Administration?s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress [sic]; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment.

The document, an update to the Democrats' December 2005 report, "A Constitution in Crisis," will be released later this week, according to knowledgeable sources. It is several hundred pages long, with over a thousand footnotes.

In earlier days such a report would be easily ignored. But with the looming possibility of Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives in November, Conyers' charges pose a potentially serious threat to the Bush administration. After all, it takes only a simple majority vote in the House to impeach a sitting president.

On their face, the laundry list of alleged wrongs form a natural basis for impeachment proceedings -- but Conyers has insisted he has no intention of rushing to impeach. No, a slow walk to possible impeachment (preferably down a path that includes months of hearings) is more what the would-be chairman envisions, he has said.

My call to the White House was not immediately returned.
 
Assuming this is true, I think what Conyers means is, wait until the fall elections to see whether we have a shot in hell of getting the votes for impeachment. I doubt any of it will ever come to pass, in spite of the fact that I imagine a sizable percentage of avowed Bush supporters would admit the Bush admininstration has violated the Constitution and/or breached any number of federal laws.
 
I really hope people don't jsut start trying to impeach every single president becasue they don't like their policies. Don't get me wrong, I DESPISE Bush , but you cannot just go around looking for petty reasons to get rid of him. We voted for him, now we are stuck with him.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really hope people don't jsut start trying to impeach every single president becasue they don't like their policies. Don't get me wrong, I DESPISE Bush , but you cannot just go around looking for petty reasons to get rid of him. We voted for him, now we are stuck with him.

Wow, so if a President is found to have complete circumvented the Constitution, launched an illegal war, and violated rights, then he should be allowed to still be President?

Meanwhile, we impeached a President for getting a BJ. *REALLY* good standard to set when trying to spread democracy in the world.

It's OK to trash your own country and it's structure, but getting a BJ is the worst thing you can do!
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really hope people don't jsut start trying to impeach every single president becasue they don't like their policies. Don't get me wrong, I DESPISE Bush , but you cannot just go around looking for petty reasons to get rid of him. We voted for him, now we are stuck with him.


This is so d*mn right on I just had to repeat it. Seriously, I view the hummer impeachment as a national disgrace of historical proportions. Unless our electoral process become hopelessly corrupted by redistricting and rigged Diebold machines, voter activism is the solution, not impeachment.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really hope people don't jsut start trying to impeach every single president becasue they don't like their policies. Don't get me wrong, I DESPISE Bush , but you cannot just go around looking for petty reasons to get rid of him. We voted for him, now we are stuck with him.

You're right, if all we've got is petty reasons that are half imagined just because we don't like his policies, that's not a good reason to impeach him...we'll leave that kind of bullshit for the Republicans.

But if we have a presidential administration that has repeatedly broken several different, major laws...I think that might be worth some investigating, don't you?
 
If the Dems managed to take back control of the the house & senate (and that's a big IF) I would be SHOCKED if they started impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Investigations? You bet.
Hearings? You bet.
Impeachment? Nope.

I've probably written this a half dozen times (this thread is turning into a repost) but the Dems need the issue. Hanging Bush and his administration up like a pinata (and by proxy the entire Republican party) for the last two years of his presidency and beating them all with the scandal stick is much more effective than booting him out. And they know it. Impeach him and the issue goes away. By crippling his administration with an endless parade of investigations, hearings, and committee appearances, the Ds can not only stop him in his tracks but they will scandalize the entire party.

That makes things much easier for them come '08. Since the game is about controlling the power, (both sides are equally guilty on this one) and not about right and wrong, this is the best strategy for the Ds to take.

Conyers says as much in the link
On their face, the laundry list of alleged wrongs form a natural basis for impeachment proceedings -- but Conyers has insisted he has no intention of rushing to impeach. No, a slow walk to possible impeachment (preferably down a path that includes months of hearings) is more what the would-be chairman envisions, he has said.

My call to the White House was not immediately returned.
That made me LOL. :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I really hope people don't jsut start trying to impeach every single president becasue they don't like their policies. Don't get me wrong, I DESPISE Bush , but you cannot just go around looking for petty reasons to get rid of him. We voted for him, now we are stuck with him.

Not too long ago folks were screaming for the head of Ken Lay on a platter cuz "he violated the law" and folks lost lots of money...
Now then.... Just what in Helsinki do you call what the President has done? Cost all Americans lots of money and some died in his trumped up WMD excursion....
The Congress has a responsibility to proceed with impeachment hearings if even one of the Conyers allegations are credible. And, I have no doubt some are with out doubt to even the most ardent supporters.
 
The Dems lack the sort of drive to follow through with something like that. That's one thing i've noticed about that party over the years, all talk and no action. I'll beleive it when I see it.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
He's just a far left liberal blowing his load to stir up dailykos. Don't think much of it.

Of course he is... but the allegations against not only Bush but many in the Executive are solid. At least solid enough to proceed with the impeachment of them.
Perhaps you don't care about the laws broken or the money wasted or the lives lost..

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: zendari
He's just a far left liberal blowing his load to stir up dailykos. Don't think much of it.

Yep. Par for the course.

agreed. Libs need to realize, getting angrier only makes the blood pressure rise. wait till 08 to vote for a Dem with a plan.

Oh wait - The only platform will be - yep, you guessed it - don't vote republican.

Meanwhile, the republican candidates will be running based on issues...
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: zendari
He's just a far left liberal blowing his load to stir up dailykos. Don't think much of it.

Yep. Par for the course.

agreed. Libs need to realize, getting angrier only makes the blood pressure rise. wait till 08 to vote for a Dem with a plan.

Oh wait - The only platform will be - yep, you guessed it - don't vote republican.

Meanwhile, the republican candidates will be running based on issues...


+1
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: zendari
He's just a far left liberal blowing his load to stir up dailykos. Don't think much of it.

Yep. Par for the course.

agreed. Libs need to realize, getting angrier only makes the blood pressure rise. wait till 08 to vote for a Dem with a plan.

Oh wait - The only platform will be - yep, you guessed it - don't vote republican.

Meanwhile, the republican candidates will be running based on issues...

Hehehehehehehe.... Neither party will perform according to their campaign statements. Hardly one plank in a winning party's platform ever gets enacted in the manner stated. But this mid term and presidential runs will be much different.. Too much wasted money and too many dead... Johnson would have lost to RFK in '68's primary over much the same thing.. And it was Nixon who promised bacon and found the pig years later after escalation after escalation
 
Back
Top