PDA

View Full Version : Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst...



Hardrock69
01-25-2006, 10:26 PM
The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.

"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.



Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush.

"Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."
The law limits the government surveillance to no more than 72 hours without a court warrant. The president, citing his constitutional war powers, has pledged to continue wiretaps without a warrant.

The hearings would be accompanied by several lawsuits against the administration connected to the surveillance program. At the same time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that demands information about the NSA spying.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and Pennsylvania Republican, has acknowledged that the hearings could conclude with a vote of whether Mr. Bush violated the law. Mr. Specter, a critic of the administration’s surveillance program, stressed that, although he would not seek it, impeachment is a possible outcome.

"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."

Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

On Jan. 16, former Vice President Al Gore set the tone for impeachment hearings against Mr. Bush by accusing the president of lying to the American people. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, accused the president of "indifference" to the Constitution and urged a serious congressional investigation. He said the administration decided to break the law after Congress refused to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore said.

"I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution,” he said. “Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country."

Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.

The latest CRS report said Mr. Bush should have briefed the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. The report said covert programs must be reported to House and Senate leaders as well as the chairs of the intelligence panels, termed the "Gang of Eight."

Administration sources said Mr. Bush would wage a vigorous defense of electronic surveillance and other controversial measures enacted after 9/11. They said the president would begin with pressure on Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bush would then point to security measures taken by the former administration of President Bill Clinton.

"The argument is that the American people will never forgive any public official who knowingly hurts national security," an administration source said. "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."

LINK (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm)


President Bush hooted excitedly to the press on Jan. 22 after returning to the White House from Camp David.

wolfy5150
02-01-2006, 08:47 AM
Its hard to form a coalition when the Presidents party holds a majority in both houses of Congress.This is much ado about nothing.

Warham
02-01-2006, 08:54 AM
::crickets chirping::

Cathedral
02-01-2006, 08:59 AM
This will be another waste of tax payer money to learn what i already know, no laws were broken if all the monitored calls are International calls, and Bush admits to that.

There had better be some proof that domestic calls were also monitored or like i said, it's just a waste of tax payer money and it is an election year, those tax payers will be watching.

DR CHIP
02-01-2006, 09:44 AM
Hardrock I understand your frustration with what can be taken as an erosion of our privacies and liberties, but as Cat above has said "no laws were broken if all the monitored calls are International calls"....

My opinion is that this is an election year and the political drama will be high, but nothing will stick on the Pres unless he was monitorng things he isn't telling us...and if they can cover up 9/11 as you say, then how in the hell can't they cover up a few phone calls?

Peace

DLR'sCock
02-01-2006, 10:05 AM
Well, the first thing that needs to be undestood is that nobody really knows who they were monitoring and how many, so what needs to be done is get that information and finds out what the truth is and what sin't and go from there.

Nickdfresh
02-01-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by wolfy5150
Its hard to form a coalition when the Presidents party holds a majority in both houses of Congress.This is much ado about nothing.

ARLEN SPECTOR has publicly mulled the possibility of impeachment....

And Republicans are now beginning to distance themselves for the more corrupt elements in their party, the pols like DeLAY that once instilled fear are now marginalized increasingly. With a President attached to the historically lowest public opinion poll numbers of any sitting President entering a second term other than NIXON, anything is possible...

Nickdfresh
02-01-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by DR CHIP
Hardrock I understand your frustration with what can be taken as an erosion of our privacies and liberties, but as Cat above has said "no laws were broken if all the monitored calls are International calls"....

My opinion is that this is an election year and the political drama will be high, but nothing will stick on the Pres unless he was monitorng things he isn't telling us...and if they can cover up 9/11 as you say, then how in the hell can't they cover up a few phone calls?

Peace

If Americans were making those international calls, then in fact laws were broken...

Those conducting Surveillance, electronic of visual, need to go to the FISA Court to get a warrant for such wide sweeping powers, that's why there is a FISA court existing, because this was the kind of COINTEL PRO crap from the 60's and 70's that was overreaching and in fact counterproductive towards intelligence gathering. In short, not only is it an erosion of civil liberties, it binds up the system with so much info, that they can't determine the real threats....

The 9/11 hijackers were in US flight schools bragging that they didn't care to learn how to land a plane, citizens turned them into the FBI, nobody was put under surveillance and the case was ignored by HQ even though several FBI agents complained in frustration. but I'm supposed to believe that monitoring phone calls would have saved us all? I seriously doubt it!

Hardrock69
02-01-2006, 10:35 AM
Anyone who trusts Chimpy & his band of Criminal Clowns is delusional.

LoungeMachine
02-01-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
Anyone who trusts Chimpy & his band of Criminal Clowns is delusional.

BigBadBrian
Warhamster
Dr. ASSVibe
4moronyears
McCarrens
thome


If there's any kool-ade left when they're done....you're welcome to it sheep.

Warham
02-01-2006, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
ARLEN SPECTOR has publicly mulled the possibility of impeachment....

And Republicans are now beginning to distance themselves for the more corrupt elements in their party, the pols like DeLAY that once instilled fear are now marginalized increasingly. With a President attached to the historically lowest public opinion poll numbers of any sitting President entering a second term other than NIXON, anything is possible...

They don't have anything to worry about. The Democrats keep doing dumbass things to make themselves irrelevant on an almost weekly basis. Take for instance the latest John Kerry/Ted Kennedy filibuster snafu, where they looked like asses in front of the Senate. The public pays attention to shit like that.

FORD
02-01-2006, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
ARLEN SPECTOR has publicly mulled the possibility of impeachment....

And Republicans are now beginning to distance themselves for the more corrupt elements in their party, the pols like DeLAY that once instilled fear are now marginalized increasingly. With a President attached to the historically lowest public opinion poll numbers of any sitting President entering a second term other than NIXON, anything is possible...

If Arlen Spector was going to bring down the BCE, he could have done so 40 years ago. Arlen's also a "pro choice" Republican who just allowed an Opus Dei fascist on the Supreme Court, so it's obvious Arlen's word is worth about as much as his magic bullet theory.

If we leave Chimpeachment in his hands, we'll probably end up with the 22nd ammendment repealed instead.

Cathedral
02-01-2006, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
If Americans were making those international calls, then in fact laws were broken...

Those conducting Surveillance, electronic of visual, need to go to the FISA Court to get a warrant for such wide sweeping powers, that's why there is a FISA court existing, because this was the kind of COINTEL PRO crap from the 60's and 70's that was overreaching and in fact counterproductive towards intelligence gathering. In short, not only is it an erosion of civil liberties, it binds up the system with so much info, that they can't determine the real threats....

The 9/11 hijackers were in US flight schools bragging that they didn't care to learn how to land a plane, citizens turned them into the FBI, nobody was put under surveillance and the case was ignored by HQ even though several FBI agents complained in frustration. but I'm supposed to believe that monitoring phone calls would have saved us all? I seriously doubt it!

Right, and so we arrive right back where we started. and my question is the same. it has been said that Bush "circumvented" FISA law because their activities can not work under FISA conditions.
My question is Why?, and i would like it explained to me the reason the current law had to be avoided.

And also, Nick, I don't see why Americans would be involved in these calls so i don't see Americans as being the target of any of this surveillance. Given that detail, no laws are being broken.

But still, he's operating outside of the law, but from what i know, he's doing it legally.
I just don't believe he's arrogant enough-bold enough-smart enough to pull off such an illegal operation without ultimately getting busted.

My gut tells me they won't find that any laws are broken.

If i'm wrong, and they do, then buh bye ba-Bush-ka....

Warham
02-01-2006, 11:11 AM
You guys think Bush did this kind of thing without consulting somebody first...like a lawyer on his staff? I mean, he is the Supreme Chancellor of the BCE. He must be smart enough to figure out he'll be busted if he doesn't follow the letter of the law, right?

Cathedral
02-01-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Warham
They don't have anything to worry about. The Democrats keep doing dumbass things to make themselves irrelevant on an almost weekly basis. Take for instance the latest John Kerry/Ted Kennedy filibuster snafu, where they looked like asses in front of the Senate. The public pays attention to shit like that.

The whole process is just childish, and the more i look at it, the younger it gets.
I feel this need to send every Senator and Congressperson a pacifier to reward them for their dedication to their jobs.
They are all failing us miserably and somehow need to get the message that this current state of political affairs just isn't going to fly anymore.

Our kid's deserve better than where we're leading them.

FORD
02-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Warham
You guys think Bush did this kind of thing without consulting somebody first...like a lawyer on his staff? I mean, he is the Supreme Chancellor of the BCE. He must be smart enough to figure out he'll be busted if he doesn't follow the letter of the law, right?

Chimpy has said, literally that the FISA law is an "old" law, and so it no longer applies.

FISA was passed in 1978. It's about as old as Van Halen's first album.

But then, Chimpy also referred to the 200 something year old law called the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper".

So he basically considers himself to be above all laws of man, and most likely the laws of God, since he's broken most of them as well.

As I've said before, if Chimpy isn't the Antichrist, he's one HELL of an opening act.

Warham
02-01-2006, 03:15 PM
I'm not going to believe Bush said any such thing until I have it as an audio file. I'm not believing some hack columnist's inside information on that one.

And all of us have broken God's laws. He's not any worse than any of the rest of us.

DR CHIP
02-01-2006, 03:21 PM
Ford, Bush isn't the anti-christ, c'mon.....

My bet...ANY TAKERS?....nothing, absolutely nothing happens to Bush over the NSA stuff....

FORD
02-01-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm not going to believe Bush said any such thing until I have it as an audio file. I'm not believing some hack columnist's inside information on that one.

You don't need to. His actions confirm that's what he believes, whether he literally said the words or not.

And all of us have broken God's laws. He's not any worse than any of the rest of us.

I might occasionally take the Lord's name in vain, and I don't go to church on Sunday, but I don't think that's quite the same as slaughtering over 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

McCarrens
02-01-2006, 04:05 PM
Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of the Lord?

Warham
02-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Yes, they are McCarrens.

FORD isn't winning any bonus points with Jesus for pointing out Bush's sins.

Hardrock69
02-01-2006, 05:25 PM
Who cares about Ford's relationship with a dusty pile of 2,000-year-old bones in the Middle East?

Jesus Christ
02-01-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yes, they are McCarrens.

FORD isn't winning any bonus points with Jesus for pointing out Bush's sins.

Better ye should worry about thine own bonus points, My son.

Warham
02-01-2006, 05:34 PM
Posing as Jesus on a message board won't get you any bonus points either.

Jesus Christ
02-01-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Hardrock69
Who cares about Ford's relationship with a dusty pile of 2,000-year-old bones in the Middle East?

Hey! :mad:

Watch who thou art calling a dusty pile of bones!

Hardrock69
02-01-2006, 05:37 PM
I am calling JESUS a dusty old pile of bones.

You are an imposter.

Nickdfresh
02-01-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Cathedral
...

And also, Nick, I don't see why Americans would be involved in these calls so i don't see Americans as being the target of any of this surveillance. Given that detail, no laws are being broken.

Um. Like jouranlists, members of consertvative think-tanks, anybody phoning anyone overseas...


But still, he's operating outside of the law, but from what i know, he's doing it legally.

Thanks GEORGE ORWELL...:D


I just don't believe he's arrogant enough-bold enough-smart enough to pull off such an illegal operation without ultimately getting busted.

My gut tells me they won't find that any laws are broken.

If i'm wrong, and they do, then buh bye ba-Bush-ka....

But he's arrogant and cavalier enough to do it, and BUSH has already been caught in a lie regrading the scope of this thing...

I'm not even talkin' "CHIMPEACHEMNT," I just want a simple Independent Counsel! That's all, they can investigate blow jobs and land deals, they can investigate this!

Cathedral
02-01-2006, 09:02 PM
Hey thanks, Orwell was a bitchin author so i'll take that as a compliment.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what materializes. the journalist angle is a good one i hadn't thought of though.
But can this go into a splitting hairs kind of thing, like say it depends on whether the calls are incoming or outgoing?

Ya know, like the definition of "IS", lol.

I don't put anything past a politician anymore, if i can think of it they can do it...seems logical to me.

ODShowtime
02-02-2006, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm not going to believe Bush said any such thing until I have it as an audio file. I'm not believing some hack columnist's inside information on that one.

And all of us have broken God's laws. He's not any worse than any of the rest of us.

uh, gw is DEFINITELY worse than me. I haven't started wars for profit. I don't have the blood of thousands on my hands.

DLR'sCock
02-02-2006, 11:03 AM
I will repeat.....



Well, the first thing that needs to be undestood is that nobody really knows who they were monitoring and how many, so what needs to be done is get that information and find out what the truth is and what isn't and go from there.

Hardrock69
02-02-2006, 12:10 PM
Do you honestly think Chimpy is going to release information that could cause the Chimpeachment hearings to start immediately?

I doubt it....

They feel they are above the law, they think they have to answer to no one, and they will do anything they can to keep the public from getting their hands on any info that would shed more light on their fucking criminal activities....