Tag Archive: impeachment

The Russian Connection: Mueller Expands Staff

Special Counsel Robert Mulleur’s hires tell us he is concentrating on money laundering, financial fraud and Russian organized crime, in other words all of Trump’s favorite hobbies. What does Robert Mueller’s team tell us about the Russia investigation? By Julian Borger, The Guardian Even before the special counsel’s inquiry has begun in earnest into links …

Continue reading »

The Russian Connection: The Case for Obstruction of Justice

The case for obstruction of justice against Donald Trump is building. First there was the firing of FBI Director James Comey and Trump’s TV interview and tweets that indicated that his motive for Comey’s dismissal was the investigation of the Russian involvement in the 2016 election which now appears to have gone even farther than …

Continue reading »

The Russian Connection: It’s Only Wednesday

This administration has been non stop self-inflicted crisis. On Monday we learned the Trump met with the now fired FBI Director James Comey on February 14 to ask him to drop the investigation into Lt. General Michael Flynn’s, his just fired national security adviser, Russian Connection. After the usual denials by the White House, it …

Continue reading »

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

Donald Trump sat down for an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and gave congress all the cause they need to start writing the articles of impeachment when he admitted that he fired FBI Director James Comey because of the investigation of his campaign’s possible connection to the Russian interference with the 2016 election. In an …

Continue reading »

The Resistance: Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover

We are barely three weeks into the so-called presidency of Donald J. Trump and there is already talks of impeachment. Of course House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is trying to down play the chatter, once again shirking her constitutional responsibility. “[There] are grounds for displeasure and unease in the public about the performance of this …

Continue reading »

Legally Obligated to Prosecute

Cross posted from The Stars Hollow Gazette

President Barack Obama took this oath on January 20, 2009 as prescribed by the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That includes a legal obligation to enforce the laws of this country and prosecuting the criminals who break those laws, even if that criminal is another President.

Rachel Maddow tiptoed around a bit when she that Bush-era torture was “probably a war crime,” while discussing the recently released memo by Philip Zelikow, a former Bush counselor. I suspect she did so as to not find herself on the unemployment line.

Rachel Maddow relays the news that the original Philip Zelikow memo advising the Bush administration that waterboarding is torture and such, illegal, has been found despite Bush administration efforts to destroy every copy. Will new proof that the Bush administration did not act in good faith when it tortured detainees push the Obama administration to prosecute? Will the Republican Party, once principled against torture, outflank Obama and call for prosecutions?

>

It was probably a war crime, not to put a fine point on it. And that is something we are legally obligated to prosecute in this country. This opens the whole question of legal liability for torture that was administered by the previous administration. The Democratic Party will be split by this, because the White House politically doesn’t want to deal with this, even if it’s wrong and even if they know it’s wrong. And the Republican Party still has to figure out who it is. Is the Republican Party still the party of John McCain, which now has the opportunity to outflank the president on a matter of principle here? Where the Whit house knows what the right thing to do is, but they don’t want do it. Or is the Republican Party still the party of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney who think torture is OK?

Gaius Publius at AMERICAblog  doesn’t think this is going away. He also wonders why the Obama administration didn’t pursue it and links to an article written by Andrew Kreig, executive director of Justice Integrity Project, on September 13, 2011:

President-Elect Obama’s advisers feared in 2008 that authorities would “revolt” and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Obama’s top transition advisers.

University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama’s administration, revealed the team’s thinking in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall)[..]

When a citizen, Susan Harmon, who opposed torture, questioned Dean Ederly on the inclusion of Professor John C. Yoo, former Bush Justice Department attorney who authored a memo justifying torture, to Boalt Hall’s faculty, this is what happened:

Harman’s account of her actions at the Boalt Hall forum, which focused on such goals as human rights and the rule of law:

I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was single-handedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn’t their job to prosecute him.

Duh.

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he “bent over backwards” to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. She recalled, “He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.”

The last I checked waterboarding was still considered torture and torture was still a crime. Obama could well become a target for impeachment proceedings should the Democrats lose control of the Senate and more seats in the House. So long as the Obama administration refuses to prosecute former Bush administration officials, as well as, Bush and Cheney, they themselves are complicit in war crimes as per established laws and treaties of this country and the oaths that they took to uphold those laws and the Constitution.  

Anyone up for trying again — Impeachment??

Clarence Thomas is clearly in violation of the Constitution, and his right to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States must not be tolerated any longer.  Thomas perjured himself in his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991.  

Perjury is a disqualifying condition for service on the court.

Although his wife, Virginia, re-opened this situation with her demand for an apology from Anita Hill, the fact of sexual harrassment is irrelevant.  The real impeachable offense has nothing to do with his penchant for pornography.  It is perjury, as we saw with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, which is the impeachable offense.

At ‘ciminal law dot free advice dot com’ (a legal site), perjury is defined:

Perjury is the “willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding.” It is sometimes called “lying under oath;” that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand-that it could affect the outcome of the case.

Thomas perjured himself…continues below the fold–

 

STUNNING! Maddow interviews Pelosi on Bush War Crimes, impeachment and “Looking forward”

Crossposted at Daily Kos

    I give you the finest journalist America has to offer today, Rachel Maddow, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com

    A full transcript and more below the fold.

Impeach Obama

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.

Why should Americans impeach America’s first mixed-race President? Obama should be impeached to protect our nation from a precipitous slide into economic ruin and societal decay. Lacking a constitutional mechanism for voters to remove a President who is providing disastrous leadership, impeachment is our only alternative for avoiding further grievous harm. Like a charlatan physician feeding laetrile to a cancer patient, Obama and his minions have misdiagnosed, mistreated, and mismanaged our economy from his first day in office. Here are some particulars:

1. Protecting the plutocracy. In the Obama administration, the holders of concentrated private wealth come first. Their interests, generally represented in proportion to their political contributions, are defended at all costs. Obama has effectively been bribed to protect the wealthy, and the payoff will come in his future media deals and speaking fees.

2. Rewarding incompetence and reinforcing failure. The economic management team put in place by Obama is led by “experts” whose theories of deregulation and minimal interference with the marketplace resulted in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. They not only failed to forsee the problems, but are now failing to prevent their recurrence. Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke have presided over the largest transfer of taxpayer wealth to private corporations in American history. Meanwhile, unemployment rises inexorably, while a “recovery” is achieved by proclamation. Some of what has been done in secret dealings between the Obama administration and the malefactors of great wealth rises to the level of criminal conspiracy.

3. Preserving and extending a permanent warfare state. Obama has increased defense spending above Bush administration levels, because he is firmly committed to a permanent warfare state. This enriches the Military-Industrial-Complex, while providing a safety valve for unemployed and restless young people. It is the highest form of treason to engage America in unnecessary wars.

4. Making the President the supreme arbiter of the law. Obama declared that he alone would ban torture, and that no Congressional action would be required. He blocked the prosecution of Bush Administration war criminals as a further demonstration that all power effectively resides in the presidency. His continuation of the use of signing statements is further evidence of the continuation of Bush’s imperial presidency. This arrogant assertion that the President alone controls the detention and torture of prisoners in an endless war is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

It is a sad thing that so promising a politician as Barak Obama has failed so badly, but we must accept the unhappy facts. Charm is no substitute for competence, and a smooth speaking style does not compensate for a faulty character. Obama the President is not what we were promised by Obama the candidate. The deficits in his performance are so great that they warrant removal. Impeach Obama while something of America remains to be saved.

Live Blogging the Torture and Accountablity Panel Update Final Update

This is the panel the Dog has been waiting for! Torture and accountability. On the panel we have Vince Warren,. Rep. Jerry Nadler, Marcy Wheeler and Melisa Goodman. The Dog is going to try to live blog this for those playing our home game.  

Older posts «

Fetch more items