Impeachment: How to impeach Bush without the House Judiciary Committee
7 April 07 Hearty welcome from Constant to the beloved Daily Kos Visitors! As you may know, Wisconsin and Hawaii are on the table.
As Kagro X said, this is where the idea started -- using state proclamations to force Congress to confront Bush; and you learned about if with the help of Arbortender and Kagro X, Dan DeWine in VT and many others.
Proclamation in re US Attorney Firings, Goodling's resigation
All the E-mails betewen Members of Congress and State officials to block the impeachment proclamations is evidence of US government plans to not enforce the laws of war. State Proclamations calling for an impeachment investigation -- and the Member of Congress refusal to investigate or enforce the laws of war -- is war crimes evidence.
Nuremburg is precedent for keeping impeachment on the table: Failure to impeach and "impeachment" was specifically mentioned in the Nuremburg indictments. The US Attorney-firing e-mails shows how easily this evidence can be acquired, and disclosed for purposes of understanding who is blockign enforcement of the laws of war.
As a thought and a suggestion, this may help spark a Daily Kos discussion on what to do next: How to build on the momentum of the Libby conviction; and start a discussion in the Congressional committees about the Constitution, the problems, and the solution: Impeachment. One question to consider: "What is getting in the way of the full potential of the Constitution from being realized?" The answer quickly surfaces. Food for thought here.
FYI: If you want to see what else was going on behind the scenes, here is the archive of events and the Proclamation Status.
Thanks for visiting, and best wishes to you, Daily Kos Readers-Visitors. This would not have happened unless you cared, as you have well shown you do. Thanks for your efforts.
Updated 8 Nov 2006: After the November 2006 election, some have asked:
A. Is there a way for the states to prosecute a sitting President during wartime? The answer is Yes: Here's how
B. Could the President be impeached in January 2007 when the Democratic Controlled Congress takes their seat? Yes, there are three resolutions pending in three states which (yours truly, and many others) have worked to position should the Congressional leadership refuse to take action.
The proclamations are in VT, CA, and IL; the details of the proclamations are here.
As is expected, should the DNC leadership refuse to act, there are other options: The States may lawfully prosecute the President while in office; and US citizens may lawfully work with the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors to bring evidence, and have a trial of a sitting President for war crimes.
Members of Congress Have An Interest In Inaction
The problem is not isolated to the President, but includes Members of Congress who failed to prevent war crimes. The Military Commissions Act, which, as was the case with Yugoslavia, illegally granted immunity to the leadership for inaction on war crimes. The similar bill and grant of immunity in Yugoslavia was seen by NATO and the US as the Yugoslavian equivalent of having no respect for Geneva obligations, prompting an invasion. The United States' Perle Pearle in Vanity Fair admitted not all non-military options were exhausted. This is a war crime.
Pelosi's alleged failure to take all lawful actions to enforce the law, and protect the Constitution; or somehow prevent the President from being held accountable through impeachment, could be seen, as was the Yugoslavian leaders' action, a basis for foreign fighters to conclude the US leadership is not serious about asserting the rule of law.
What You Can Do: If you're interested in talking to your friends about this, or wondering what you can do, here's the current plan: Project Clambake. The American leadership must put their money where their mouth is: Are they going to assert the rule of law, and hold the President accountable for criminal conduct; or are those who refuse to do so also going to be held accountable for their alleged complicity to refuse to act when they had the duty, power, and options to do so.
Good luck, and thanks for your interest.
Below
These are the entries related to using House Rule 603: The Congressional rule permitting a state proclamation calling for impeachment to trigger an investigation and impeachment proceeding in the Congress.
The notes are in reverse order. The colored text (further down) highlights the information in the House rules and precedent.
Update [25 Apr 2006] 603 effort: 1 May 06: Vermont to present proclamation to Hastert; Lessons from Vermont for CA and IL; finding details on House Rule 603
Read this, updated 13 Feb 2006: Some ideas just get better. This idea is maturing. You'll like this summary: [ Click ]
The rest of the information below is the original information. Feel free to read it -- it shows you how far we come. Thanks for your support!
[ For your convenience, there is a State Proclamation Archive; Click here to read other content in the State Proclamation Archive.]
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
Update 04 Feb 2006: There is real traction for state action Click -- States can force the House. A state proclamation means the voters have 9 months to digest what the Congress has or has not done to [a] assert rule of law; [b] subdue the President's rebellion against Constitution; [c] honor their oath to protect the system of checks and balances; or [d] credibly discuss lawful remedies [ removal ] to tame this President's continued disregard for the rule of law.
The State proclamation on impeachment forces the Congress to face this issue -- and the voters will have time to evaluate their "non response to" or "complicity with" the rebellion. Congress cannot "let it slide" until after the mid-term election. If the issue is "left to slide," the voters will have options at the State level, and can publicly debate this issue in their local communities/legislatures/assemblies over who they trust to assert the rule of law. Those in Congress who fail to assert their oath, and timely address this issue in the Summer of 2006 will have to face a fully knowledgeable voting electorate who knows what the Constitution says, and what the Congress has failed to do.
Update 01 feb 2006 Highly recommended: Here is the quick version of the following information: Click here.
This blogspot shows you the discussion realted to the State Proclomatins. Click here if you want a summary of what is giong on, and what ou can do at your local state level to share this information with your friends.
The links agove will guide you to how this is done, and what you can do to tell the Joint Staff to stop their rebellion against the Constitution.
Update 27 Jan 2006
Here is the link on how to approach the Senate rules in a new way, and start an effort to cratively protect the Senate filibuster rule.
Update: 26 Jan 2006
When we know the facts
About the crimes inside the NSA,
We will know whether we can trust --
This man they call Alito --
To tell us about the law.Ref
Tell your Senators -- if they are not happy with what is happening, and want to filibuster, but do not have support -- tell them there's a surprise.
Here are the details: Click -- Discuss the Vermont Proclamation-spear and meet your state POC's on this effort. TPM
The message is clear: We shall only proceed with state affairs after we get information about the NSA program. Until then it is premature to make a decision on the Supreme Court nominee. Sandra Day O'Connor is an honorable Justice. The White House is in a box -- attempting to force a decision, when we have insufficient information about the White House unlawful activity to determine the best way forward.
It is appropriate to find facts, not ram-rod the American people with another choice based on incomplete information. The White House approach -- to which both the RNC and DNC blindly assent -- appeals to sirens and ignorance, not facts. That approach failed with Iraq and the WMD issue. It must end. Now. Filibuster! [67 votes required to change rules on filibuster -- why is DNC afraid?]
The RNC is in a no-win situation. This must be exploited to protect our Constitution. The public needs the information to make informed decisions about our leadership and their commitment to the rule of law and their oaths of office.
Demand a filibuster: TOLL FREE - 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 Ref: #50; Capital Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Independent Senators -- those not with the RNC or DNC -- must be called, encouraged to filibuster, and force the DNC and RNC to make no commitments until we learn more. [Their numbers]
The lesson is clear. The American voters and world learn once again -- can see before their eyes, and now know well before the 2006 election -- the American goverment refuses to face facts, openly debate, or protect our Constitution. We learned the lesson with Iraq and WMD: Their oaths to God and facts mean nothing, and American leadership proceeds on the basis of ignorance and lawlessness.
Their agenda does not include the rule of law or the Constitution. This President has used excuses to avoid issues--then uses the disasters he nurtures as excuses to avoid matters of law. He feigns ignorant of facts. Before 9-11, the NSA was unlawflly looking for facts he did not wish to see -- although he was warned many times of what was brewing: Enough warning to start unlawful conduct. Now we know. What else will we find with the Senate Judiciary Hearing into the NSA?
We have no higher calling than the rule of law and our Constitution. The issues which for years have not been addressed can wait a few short weeks, until we have more urgent, material information. Yet, we know that the ruse of "we have more important issues" is a ruse -- because those other issues also face White House stonewalling -- it is imprudent to ignore today's issues, run to more distractions and stonewalls -- no different than Iraq, WMD, and Senate Phase II.
We must compel the President to assent to the rule of law. His agenda is a distraction, designed to imply a commitment or noble objective. But this President do not know honor. He has betrayed his oath. His promises, choices, and leadership are without legal foundation. He refuses to assent to the peaceful formus -- the courts and Congress over matters of fact and law -- the only forum he nuzzles is the battlefield.
Tell your Federal-level Senators to call their State Legislature -- yes, I mean their home state -- can give the RNC payback: And launch an impeachment inquiry. This will trump all business in the House:Click.
The ultimatum should be: You find another nominee, or we will find where you stand on the rule of law -- and the RNC will get trashed.
The RNC is doing it again -- just like with 9-11: "Hay, we'll get around to that Phase II. . . " It's time to make the RNC and DNC publicly commit:
- Do you take your oath of office seriously: To preserve the Constitution against encroachments by the Executive on Legislative Power -- Article 1 Section 8 -- the power of Congress to make rules about FISA, detentions, pirates;
- Where do you stand on the rule of law -- are you simply waving the flag, or do you want to preserve the Constitution;
- Are you going to make decisions based on facts -- and review these matters -- or do what you did, and vote to delay, but rubber stamp it later with more excuses; and
- Why are you voting in December to "delay" the Patriot Act renewal, but now you don't want to find the facts -- with an impeachment inquiry -- that prompted that "concern" in the wake of the NYT article?
If a Senator is "really upset" about what is going on -- they have the option to mobilize their state's citizens, and get them to call for State Action.
The momentum is already tipping the favor of Vermont to take action. If you truly are frustrated, tell your DC-Senator to get with the VT-delegation, and issue a state proclamation calling for the House to investigate. This will trump all business. Let the White House know: You shove this non-sense down our throats, you haven't seen anything -- we're going to find out what's going on -- and then give the voters 10 months to digest the information.
The House rules do not permit this demand for investigation to get buried in committee; rather the precedent is that when a State Proclamation arrives -- and demands an investigation -- even if the committee cannot agree on the results, and reach no consensus -- the House must vote. Their vote will let the public know -- and give the public 10 months to digest their real position on their oaths, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
It is time for the DNC to quit playing softball -- and organize their State Legislators to issue this proclamation. Here is more on how this can happen -- read below. It only gets worse for the RNC: They are in a no-win situation -- only if you assert the rule of law, and compel them to publicly comment -- with a vote -- on the President's conduct.
We deserve to know where people stand on their oaths of office, rule of law and the US Constitution.
America has been fed lies about WMD, 9-11, and abuse in Abu Ghraib. These are violations of the law. Each time we have been told to "play nice" and "be patient." each time the excuse was the same, "Wait until . . ."
Well, now the NYT tells us something that w4e should've known about. And the Senate Judiciary Committee will only touch the surface. It is time to get the House to commit: Where do you stand before the elections; then the public can interpedently review the information -- with enough time -- and come to an informed decision: Do we trust the leadership to find answers, or are they playing the same games they've done with the WMD and 9-11 issue. If you want to know the facts to make decisions, then it is time the Senators press to draw the line in the sand, and make the White House call their bluff: Have them vote away the filibuster; have the White House threaten to take away a lawful/constitutional Senate Rule. The White House is doing the same: The RNC and White House are in a no-win situation, and they're making "everyone else" jump through hoops. They did the same with 9-11, Phase II, Iraq WMD; and each time it was 'someone else’s fault."
Enough! Draw the line, make the leadership commit, and then let's find the facts -- does what they've done with their vote on impeachment square with what a reasonable leaders in DC should have done in light of their oath of office. If they do not wish to make decisions based on facts, then that is material information we need to know now. Not "later" or "after the election" -- now!
It is self-evident people talk about principles, but do little to put their money where their mouth is. That is material information that the public should know to make an informed decision: Where does DC stand. If they refuse to take action, then that is something the public should know before casting their ballots in November 2006.
The issue is simple: They’ve kicked the can down the road so many times, that can has too many dents in it to be recognizable.
Small problem: That can is your Constitution.
Tell DC to quit their non-sense and assert their oaths and the rule of law – find out what is going on, and ensure the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, and the power of Congress to pass lawful/constitutional FISA statutes is preserved – as is the 4th Amendment with requires probable cause before a warrant will issue.
Your leadership in DC is doing nothing about the NSA’s violation of your rights. They will not draw the line. They will not call them to account. It is time to compel action – and drive home the point: Enough.
Once your State and Federal officials realize they are in a no-win situation – and that they have to pay attention the Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA issue – then they will know that you – the voter – has information you can use to make an informed decision in this election cycle. There is no reason to wait to find out the truth; rather, there is every reason to say, “Enough is enough – you will take action, you will oppose this unlawful conduct, and you will do what is in your power to preserve this Constitution.”
The took an oath to God. It is their job. They do not have a choice about what is or isn’t in the Constitution – it is there, black and white, Article 1 Section 8 – Congress has the power to make rules; and in the 4th Amendment – No warrants shall issue unless probable cause exists. They have defined the rule of law. And this President flies to Kansas to get the public to celebrate this non-sense.
It is time the Congress do to the Executive what this Executive has done to us – create an NSA- like system that will monitor the executive in the same way the NSA monitors us. Oh, and if the White House says, “that’s no allowed” – surely, the Congress will know, Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the powers to pass laws required to govern the Joint Staff – that means if the White House is going to violate the law to monitor Americans; then the Congress should have the power to do the same to the Executive – use electronic monitor to find out what other evil is going on inside the bowels of the Joint Staff. Perhaps we’ll have a straight story on why the DoD is planning to attack Iran, and what targets they have – but the IAEA can’t find anything at those targets. Those are war crimes. They are doing what they did in 2002, again in 2006: Distractions, non-sense, and action without regard to facts.
They say that the ‘talk must end” over Iraq – and that “we need to find out what is going on with NSA” before we can extend the patriot Act. Yet, now that they can put their money where their mouth is – and demand the RNC to commit to the rule of law with a vote on impeachment in the House – the DNC says, “Well, we really don’t want to know the truth. We don’t want to make the RNC do anything.”
Wake up! They avoid reality when it comes to WMD; and they avoid reality when it comes to accountability. It’s the same crew – same cloth – same non-sense: War crimes, violations of the law, actions based on non-sense, and continuing to ignore Article 1 Section 8. Congress has the power to make rules; Congress has the power to break up the NSA into pieces so that Congress can point the NSA-like monitoring at the Executive and find out the other violations of the law.
If you want to know facts, get your Senators to work with the Vermont Delegation, and get a state-level proclamation demanding an investigation to start an impeachment against the President and Vice president. If you want to be treated as if you are gullible children, by all means, continue to whine and complain and say, “nothing can be done.”
that is bullshit – you have the power to get off your ass, call your state legislators, and tell them: “I’m going to watch how you vote on these issues when they come before the state. If you defy your oath, and refuse to compel the nation to find facts, then you’re not getting my vote.”
It is time to force the House to act – to make a decision – to publicly state their position on their oath – and it is time for the public to realize that you have the power to compel your state legislators to commit in public their stand on the issues of their oaths, and the rule of law. Do they want to know facts and make policy based on facts – then they should not fear compelling an investigation with a state proclamation. But if they fear something – whatever that is – all you have to know is that they’re giving you non-sense, not taking action, and refusing to assert their oath.
is that the kind of person you want “working for you” in DC or your State – someone that you’re “not sure” whether they do or do not want to know facts; someone who “may not” rally want to know the truth? If they will not do it now, why should they do it when it becomes more difficult – when the issues are less clear, when the issues are still in their infancy.
We have clear violations of the law and a fatal admission by the President of what is going on. But the nation moves as if it is in a zombie-like cloud. What is to be said of the state and local leadership when the issues are less clear? The answer, more of what we have had: “Oh, we can’t tell you that” – yet, ask yourself – if everything was “so confusing” after 9-11: How did they have the foresight before 9-11 to start unlawful NSA surveillance, and write the Patriot Act?
If this nation is a nation of laws based on facts, why did Powell say before 9-11 that Iraq had no WMD: but when 9-11 occurred, suddenly that changed – out of nowhere Iraq has a convenient excuse.
The bottom line – this nation’s leadership has no respect for the law. They will do whatever is in their PNAC agenda. The evidence before us is clear: They’ve leaked Ambassador Wilson’s’ name; they’ve lied about the WMD; they’ve engaged in an unlawful war of aggression. And each time, we’ve been told – not asked – to put up with the answer: “We’ll get around to that later. . . “
No. The future has arrived. They do have an oath. The rule of law is real. And their job is to preserve the Constitution – ensuring it is preserved means finding facts, and holding people accountable when the Constitution is violated. If your leadership isn’t willing to do that, then why are you voting for them – why are you complaining – why are you whining – you have the power to call them up, tell them to take action, and remind them to review these issues during the Senate Judiciary Hearings into the NSA’s warrant less surveillance program.
Your job – if you want to admit it – is to assert your rights, and demand that your leadership honor their oaths. This is no different than the simple meeting between the Knights and King John over the Magna Charta. But today, we have a Constitution – to which they have already sworn an oath – and it is our job to make them commit to that oath and document again – and then find the facts to see if their oath means anything.
If the truth is that they have done the right thing – fine, vote for them. But make your vote hinge on facts, not on some “wishful thinking” that “maybe” something will “turn out” possibly if the “weather is favorable” or if the RNC gives you permission to use your mind.
The RNC looks at you as gullible sheep. And they have no intention of facing reality unless you compel them – through the force of law – to let you compare facts with what they say.
If you dare to enjoy your rights – then assert them – but do not dare waver in your fear. For if you believe that you will “lose a right because you will exercise it” – in demanding a filibuster or finding answers – then you are not free4. Rather, you are only glued to the idea of freedom, only if you do not assert your right to enjoy that freedom of inquiry.
A right that you have – but you are unwilling to assert – is not a right worth having – it is a dream of liberty, while you are actually a fearful slave. If that is what you want – to live in fear, and be a slave to those who will put you off – fine, there are far bolder who are willing to assert the rule of law to protect your right to be mindless.
Many are willing to assert the rule of law, willing to find the facts, and face something that you may not like – and risk having an inconvenient internet-surfing evening – and possibly interrupt their personal safety -- so that you, a miserable creature who enjoys being a slave – will have the chance of taking about freedom, even though you are fearful of using your rights.
Yes, you are free to be a slave. Enjoy it!
In the meantime, use your phone and call your state and local official: Remind them you are alive, willing to be a slave, and will blindly obey them as they go through the motions with this NSA hearing – you don’t care about their oath; you enjoy paying them money to not honor their oath; and you enjoy voting for people who will do nothing to make decisions related to self-evident-admitted violations of the law.
Yes, when it is easy to do nothing – you do nothing; and when it is hard, you will still do nothing – just as you did nothing about the Iraq WMD issue; nothing about 9-11; nothing about Plame; and nothing about arrogant deceptions and violations of the shield you call your Constitution.
Update: 25 Jan 2006:
Which state should issue the proclomation: Vote here.
Based on a quick look of the DNC majorities across all 50 states, we judge it is inevitable the President will be impeached. Even if the RNC refuses to take action in the House, the States have sufficient margins to override state-level RNC vetoes and issue at least four [4] proclamations with little debate as early as March 2006. Only one proclamation is needed.
This takes us back to the Nixon days: When the Senators reported he didn't have enough votes. Bush does not have enough support in all 50 states to remain immune to a State-triggered demand for an impeachment vote.
After the dust settles, we judge the elected RNC members do not have sufficient arrogance to defy their oaths, and will rebuke the President as they did in Dec 2005 with the Patriot Act. Given we have not had the Senate Judiciary Hearings, it is unclear whether the Senate details will sway the senate for conviction, but it appears the RNC is on the verge of losing many seats in both Houses if they fail to convict.
We judge the Patriot Act will not get extended; and the President will not complete his term in office.
The analysis considered the valuable time and inputs from Daily Kos and many others who take the Constitution, rule of law, and oaths of office seriously. We are grateful for their support and continued interest. Their work continues at the state level. More details below at kw= [ Results: ], include the : colon : .
The 01 March 2006 deadline for House vote on impeachment remains. If no action is taken, the American citizens stand ready to make the inevitable occur with all due speed. There is nothing the RNC can do to defy the rule of law or their oaths of office to the American Constitution.
Choose wisely.
You have wished for this.
[Details include: Basis for judging RNC is in a "no win" situation; a Citizens Guide to implementing this approach; and other material showing how a the States can use the house rules to go around the RNC-controlled Judiciary Committee.]
Update 24 Jan 2006; 1:05A EST: Take a deep breath. Remain calm. Heed Prosecutor Fitzgerald's appeal, "Remain calm." Do not resort to violence.
Keep fosued: Does the country want to know the facts? If so, there should be nothing the RNC or DNC should fear in reviewing these matters publicly:
America has had a military coup -- a "blow at the state." It is UnConstitutional for the American military and the White House to change the 4th Amendment warrant requirement -- by [a] lowering the standard from probable cause to unreasonable suspicion; then, [b] refusing to secure the lawfully required warrants -- without following the "Constitional Amendment-change process."Here's the problem: Not only is the conduct unconstitutional, but the argument is factually false.
Take a deep breath. Remain calm.
It remains to be seen:
It is prudent to monitor whether the State officials have the courtesty to respond to your concerns. Know, they are willing to put their party -- and an agreement with the opposing party to do nothing -- before their oath of office and your Constitution. They did the same during 9-11.
A state proclomation will send a clear signal -- the existing DNC and RNC leadership and members at the state and federal level are unresponsive. It is well within the scope of possibility the party leadership of both the DNC and RNC could agree to defy their oath -- refuse to take action, agree to delay action, and dissuade the states from taking action -- in the hopes of avoiding public knowledge of their collective inability to formulate effective national policy.
There is nothing they can do to prevent the citizens from making an informed decision about whether they can trust either the DNC or the RNC leadership to addres self-evident violations of Article 1 Section 8.
Both the RNC and DNC have taken the bait and are both in this trap. But now the people -- all 300 million of us know what is possible -- they have the power to take action at the local level, in their states, and demand the rule of law and Article 1 Section 8 be imposed on both the RNC and DNC.
Choose wisely. You are outnumbered. The number of disaffected voters in this country outnumber the combined DNC and RNC membership. States have independent governors who have no loyalty to either the RNC or DNC. If the RNC and DNC choose to collectively agree to do nothing -- out of naive believe that the people have no choice -- the people can easily form new parties and work with the independent governors to remind you of your oath of office.
Article 1 Section 8 is clear, as are your oaths.
Choose: Are you going to preserve your oath -- both in the DNC, and RNC;
Or do you require the public to debate this issue and form a new party compete directly with what has self-evidently failed in the wake of 9-11.
Your deadline remains: 1 Mar 2006. After that, the public will continue with the state action and bring a proclomation. It is irrelevant whether the RNC or DNC may be embarrassed. This country's citizens have had the courtesy of putting up with your collective inaction and inability to solve problems -- we have plenty of evidence to see what is going on, and who might dare have an alternative approach.
There is one approach: The Constitution. There is one guide: Your oath. Other than that, the public stands ready to step in and provide new leadership where the RNC and DNC have collectively failed.
You have wished for this.
Updates: 23 Jan 2006, 3PM EST: Three Scrolling Boxes Added, outlining:
The 01 March 2006 deadline is firm. The States have already started action.
The RNC is going to lose. The President will most likely be impeached NLT Jan 2007.
This is about Article 1 Section 8.
Update 19 Jan 2006: This approach has been successfully tested with a Florida State resolution against a Federal Judge CHARLES SWAYNE, who was subsequently impeached in 1903 without any committee hearing.
The House rules permit state resolutions on Presidential and Vice Presidential impeachments. This approach would bypass the RNC controlled House Judiciary Committee.
The information below is straightforward, and simple to understand:
You do not have to wait until the 2006 Federal Elections to act.
The resolution could come from any of the fifty [50] states. The Patriot Act votes in December 2005 reveal the President cannot be certain of support.
The rules are clear. The House permits impeachment resolutions without going through the Judiciary Committee. The rules are consistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. US affirmed the Constitutional power of the House to set rules.
The rules are consistent with the practices and history of the Chamber. Thomas Jefferson spoke of this approach in his “Jefferson Manual,” rules of procedure later adopted by the House in the 1800s.
The process is simple. Unlike the amendment process requiring 2/3 of the states; however, the impeachment resolution only needs to come from one state.
There are signs your local action will work. Local communities – over 500 – have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act. It’s likely at least one state has a majority of state legislators who would support an impeachment resolution, and transmit it to the House.
There is another sign of hope. Republicans have already defected, already stating they will for articles of impeachment. Senator Specter, Senate Judiciary chairman stated impeachment may be a solution
The federal elations are irrelevant. Citizens do not need to wait until 2006 elections or a possible change in chairmanship from the RNC to the DNC.
Citizens at the state level can and should use the time to focus on what can work: Getting this issue on the state agendas, and meeting and the state level. Citizens should encourage their federal legislators to meet with their state level representatives to discuss the issue.
If people believe or appear to have a hopeless attitude, you can interrupt them -- remind them what is in their control: Local action in the state legislature. Citizens need not idly stand, dazed at what the 2006 federal election results might be. Citizens can take action at the local level now without waiting for Washington DC.
Citizens do not have to defer action until they learn the voting results of other states. State and local level action is possibly now. It remains within your power to make this happen in your state.
There is room for hope. Action does not hinge on the outcomes of the 2006 elections, or whether the RNC does or does not lose its majority. The signs are clear – the RNC no longer can command blind obedience. The Patriot Act is on hold.
Regardless whether the Patriot Act or the decision on Judge Alito, local citizens can take action. Only one state needs to pass a resolution, but all fifty states can take action
If no action is taken, we will have more evidence of crimes.
Don’t lose hope. There are other options, and there is more evidence. Nothing the RNC can do will change history.
But you can.
Call your state legislators. Get them to comment and commit to raising this issue in your state legislature.
Then let the world know in your blogs what you learn – it may help someone else in another state.
We only need one state. The President now has 50 new problems on his hands.
The President shall lose.
Update: 22 Jan 2006
The question raised: What is to be done. Simple -- realize what is going on. The RNC is in a no win position [More on about that in the scrolling box below].
Here's what's needed: The DNC leadership needs to go immediately to the RNC House leadership and give them two options:
The following information in this scrolling box explain why the RNC is in a now-win position; the risks they will face if they fail to timely take action; and the implications a failure to take action will have on the House RNC leadership control of the Congress in both houses.
Further, more the RNC leadership will quickly realize that their party is about to be destroyed from within. There are five factions, all of them are about to scamper away from the President.
The scrolling box outlines the basis for this assertion; the assessment of why this President will not remain in office; the timeline for this action; and the probability of impeachment.
We judge, based on the following analysis that the State Proclamation, combined with an immediate RNC-DNC meeting on this subject, will result in an impeachment by the House against the President no later than January 2007; and a State Proclamation action no later than June 2006.
Again, this is what is needed: The DNC leadership needs to immediately go to the House Republicans and force them with an option, and set the deadline: They have until 01 March 2006 to comply, or the states will take action.
Again, all arguments or concerns about "can this happen" or "there will never be impeachment" are without merit. The following scrolling box goes into detailed discussion of why the RNC leadership has a major crisis on their hands; and how the RNC is about to be split into 5 competing faction.
Your job, as a reader and a blogger is simple: Make it known that the country's leadership has until 01 March 2006 to make a decision and bring this to the House Floor for a vote, or the States will continue their planning.
Messages have already been sent describing the details, how this will be accomplished, and the DNC leadership is well aware of this option. Your job as a blogger is simple -- remind the country that there is a big surprise for the RNC; that Karl Rove has committed to a 2006 election plan that is unworkable; and his party is about to be destroyed.
Here is the scrolling box outlining why the RNC is in a now-win situation; and how the 01 March 2006 deadline will compel the RNC to publicly commit on their oath of office, Article 1 Section 8, and the rule of law.
They have only one option: Assent to the rule of law and the will of the people -- you.
Scrolling Box 1: Why a State Proclamation puts the RNC in a no-win situation. This scrolling box is a discussion. It outlines for you some issues. The purpose of this scrolling box is to show The information contained below is designed to assist you. It explains the larger political calculations going on inside the RNC. Bluntly, the RNC is in a no-win situation. They know this. The RNC is in a no-win situation for several reasons: Let’s consider the RNC’s problem; and then discuss how the State-level proclamation will make their situation worse. The RNC is under siege. They no longer can be confident that the membership will support the President. Remember back to December 2005. The NYT had just published the information about the NSA’s illegal domestic surveillance. The RNC had to take a vote on the Patriot Act. The original plan was to extent the Patriot Act for many years. Then things changed with the NYT story on the NSA. The Patriot Act was not extended as planned. Rather, the RNC membership had to consider something else – their President may have lied to them. Also, the membership had to put their personal political agendas and constituents before that of the RNC. Things have changed since 9-11 and the Congressional Rubber stamping. Again, they key point is that the RNC can no longer be sure of blind support. The RNC membership is thinking. There’s also a larger problem. The State level proclamation will force the RNC membership into a dilemma. Regardless what they do, they will have a problem for several. First, let’s consider what will happen when the State Level proclamation arrives in the House in April or May. This will be in the wake of the spring budget mark-ups. The RNC will have to take an up or down vote on the State Proclamation. But here’s the problem, the RNC is divided into three camps: At this point, Camps 1 and 2 are essentially the same. Camp 3 is the swing vote – they’ve already committed to the reduced Patriot Act timeline. Once the State Proclamation arrives in the House, the three Camps will become divided. First, Camp 1 realizes that if they vote against the impeachment, they may face a backlash at the State level and lose control of the House. Camp 2 intends to reject the State Proclamation and vote against it. Camp 3 is worried – if they vote against the state proclamation, they will be inconsistent with their vote for the reduced Patriot Act timeline. This is their dilemma: No matter what Camp 3 does, they will be inconsistent with either [a] the party; [b] the rule of law, [c] their previous votes, or [d] the President. Camp 3 is the most vulnerable to facing significant State level dissent backlash, and loss. Factor C is least important to elected officials. We judge based on the RNC member votes in December 2005, factors A, and D will have less weight, most likely asserting Factor B. This tends to increase the possibility of a favorable impeachment vote at the State level. Given there are 50 states, and a DNC majority in at least one state, we judge the probability of a state proclamation – in the absence of a House vote by June 2005 – to be 95%. We judge the President’s chances of being impeached by the House before January 2007 to be 95%. But it gets worse. Let’s run through a few scenarios. You’ll see after this discussion that regardless the outcome, the RNC is going to either lose control of the House, or they will be setting themselves up to face a backlash at the state level, and compromise the 2008 elections. No matter what the RNC does at this point, it’s going to get far worse. There’s more evidence on the way – shredded documents have been reconstructed, despite RNC denials that the documents never existed. Let’s go through the scenarios. Keep in mind, we’re dealing with the assumption that the State level proclamation arrives in late April or early May – at the very time that the RNC and PNAC hope to have a full blown distraction with Iran. Once the House receives the State Proclamation, they will have to vote. There is no filibuster, and they can’t hide the proclamation in the committee. If any Congressman votes against the proclamation, they’re going to have to explain this to the public inter alia: More broadly, the local primaries will have already heated up. This issue will be in the wake of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the NSA’s unlawful warrantless surveillance. The RNC leadership hopes to delay a vote on the initial State Proclamation. But they have a problem. There’s more than one proclamation. The RNC leadership will hope to get the membership to believe that nothing was wrong, and there’s no reason to investigate. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that the RNC majority – despite their votes against the Patriot Act – changes their mind, and votes against the State Proclamation. That’s fine. They’ll make their situation worse. By refusing to take action on this issue in April and May, the public will have June through October to mull over the results of the Senate Judiciary hearings; and then ponder whether they can trust their RNC leadership. That’s at the Federal Level. At the same time, at the state level, there will be discussions within the State Legislatures. Some states will have voted to issue the proclamation, but the citizens will learn that their Federal Officials in Congress are voting against them. The local citizens will have to have some explanations that make sense: There is no easy answer; there is one right answer – the Constitution. But if they were to put that first, they would not have voted against the State Proclamation. Thus, the local citizens in each state will begin to ask, “Can we trust those we have voted for?” The doubts will spread. The existing fissures within the RNC will deepen. And the RNC leadership will start jumping ship. At the same time, the RNC leadership will begin making deals with the Grand Jury and Prosecutor. They know of the investigations that were not done, and the domestic surveillance photo archives, plus the data files kept on local citizens that are unrelated to criminal activity. At the same time the Grand Jury and Prosecutor have some leverage. Inside the law enforcement community are the informant data files – these have already been reviewed. The informant files are the contacts law enforcement has with those in the local community who are crossing the line on the law, but provide valuable information. The Prosecutor’s job is to Present to the Grand Jury information about the widespread malfeasance. The deals are in the works. The Prosecutor knows that he can leverage the hatred of the informants against law enforcement in order to get them to provide information about the malfeasance. This is within the FBI and the office of professional responsibility, not just the local law enforcement. What’s been happening since 9-11 is that local law enforcement has a new excuse to do nothing; and complaints about law enforcement have not been investigated. DHS has been using local law enforcement for intelligence gathering. However, their informants no longer wish to cooperate. Enter the Grand Jury. The informants see an opportunity to lawfully retaliate against those in the law enforcement they know are taking advantage of their situation. And the RNC leadership knows that they can no longer be sure that the problems will be kept under wraps. At the State level, there are two major problems: First is the auditing mess, and then more broadly there is the problem with the police oversight system. These have been compromised. The auditors have inexperienced personnel; and the law enforcement oversight systems have been rigged. Most officers have been trained how to mislead the public to prevent detection. The law enforcement will explain away their intelligence gathering and pre-textual stops as training – essentially creating any story that will rebuff the complaint or concern. The surprise that is coming is before the Grand Jury. The evidence has already been reviewed. The NSA data has been reconstructed. The shredded files have been reconfigured. There are software programs that can take the bits of unburnt-residue, and analyze them. What happens is the bits of fiber are scanned, electronically converted into a 2-dimenstional array. This means that the three-dimensional piece of paper is digitized, and converted into numbers – these numbers for coordinates on an x-y axis. Ever location on that X-Y axis is then filed and indexed into a master file. The scanning system will then look at the shredded document pieces, and rotate them until they match the characters of the various fonts types. The computer will compare the font angles against all the letters of the known fonts. Eventually, the computer will find a match, and then catalog this piece of paper as having a specific word, letter, and orientation. The next step is then to lay down the pieces and have the computer match the numbers. Namely, if you have a single scrap of paper with a right-side with a certain configuration, there will be another piece of paper that will have a mirror image of that configuration. Yes, the angles are very small. But each piece of paper is only cut once. This means that the shredder will cut the paper imperfectly, but there will always be a mirror image of that particular speck of paper’s cut. Then the computer does two things: It finds the mirror images; and then rotates these larger pieces into orientations that match the existing fonts. Eventually what happens is the shredded documents look like a large room full of broken pieces. Yes, they’re not connected, but if you have enough pieces you can figure things out. Here’s the problem. NSA and JTTF have been ordering their personnel to remove files, destroy them. But they’ve been doing it in a haphazard way. Rather than burn them in approved burn facilities, the leadership has been ordering law enforcement to make the stuff just disappear. They’ve been taking it home. Some have used their own shredders. And they’ve been dumping this stuff. Small problem. The contents have been retrieved and reconfigured. The reports are known to exist. And what’s worse, they’ve already committed in writing that the files and activity never existed. Remember the movie Capricorn One? That’s the story of the faked Mars Landings. The Astronauts never went to mars, and they filmed them on a stage. There was one small problem. During re-entry, the capsule – this really didn’t have the astronauts – burnt up during re-entry. Big problem: What do you do with the astronauts that are still alive – but are supposed to be dead? I’ll not give away the entire story. But suffice it to say, that’s what we have with the NSA, JTTF, and RNC: Something they said did or didn’t happen doesn’t match. The problem is they can’t keep their stories straight. Why? Because they honestly don’t know for sure whether the files they thought were destroyed have actually been destroyed. In fact, not only did the files exist at one point, but they were reconfigured using the shredded documents, back-up files, and the off site locations. The Grand Jury has the back-up files, reconfigured documents; they know approximately what time the documents were destroyed; and then appearing before them is a defense lawyer saying that their client did nothing wrong. Small problem: NSA’s already publicly admitted they’ve destroyed the files. This is called a fatal admission. Because if the NSA personnel haven’t destroyed the files, then they’ve violated policies; on the other hand, if the files exist, but NSA says they weren’t engaged in the activity – how do we explain physical evidence related to something the NSA says never occurred? In other words, the NSA story -- that they have properly destroyed the documents -- has no merit. There are backup sources. The Grand Jury can compare the physical evidence, to the NSA’s public statements and conclude: No matter what the NSA personnel say or do – they know they are lying. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the NSA personnel plead the 5th – the prosecutor and Grand Jury already know: Who was involved, what was done; how the actual conduct contradicts the law; and how the NSA public statements are not consistent with reality. Nothing adds up. This is known to the Grand Jury. This nexus is already known and understood to the RNC membership. However, the RNC leadership remains in denial. Keep in mind, this is unfolding in the wake of the Judiciary Hearings, and while the state level primaries are heating up for the 2006 elections. In the meantime, the State legislatures are trying to figure out whether they want to do anything about the impeachment proclamation. The State level proclamation will take advantage of several things: But it gets worse. The State Proclamation will split the RNC party along two-axis – along the vertical axis, and horizontal axis. Notice a simplistic version of the RNC organization. They have a hierarchy, or a pyramid. Kind of like an organization chart. Simplistically, there is the national leadership, and then there are the members. In generic terms this is like having two boxes stacked on top of each other. At the same time, remember our three camps within the RNC. These are along the horizontal axis. As the information from the Senate Judiciary Committee percolates through the States, the RNC will fissure along these two axis, into 5 smaller pieces. The RNC will have a problem. Their goal is to unite their Party. Given the unlawful conduct and no legal defense, the only option the RNC has is to rely on non-sense, illusions, and fear. This is where Iran comes in. Despite having no lawful targets -- locations and sites which the IAEA could inspect -- PNAC and the RNC are pushing for an attack on Iran. We judge the basis for the targeting to be without merit; and that the Israelis public statements are posturing. Any attack on Iran will be against facilities unrelated to nuclear weapons development, raising the real prospect of war crimes. At the same time, the CIA has been directed to encourage the Iranian opposition to accuse the President of being soft on Israel. The Iranian President is reacting because he has two things going for him: He knows he has not nuclear weapons program; and that the US is bogged down in Iran. This is exactly what the White House wants – because the Iranian President, in order to differentiate himself from the opposition, is making more public statements. Guess what? The opposition is letting him do this unchallenged. Yes, there is some concern that he’s going to far. The objective of focusing on Iran isn’t to really do anything constructive – it’s to distract the public from Article 1 Section 8 and maintain RNC discipline. This is behind Rove’s 2006 strategy. Unfortunately, he neglected to include in his plan a small matter of the states. Again, the three horizontal camps within the RNC will have rough three competing concerns, all of them incompatible: Groups 1 and 3 appear to be the same. But in fact, there’s a problem. The RNC believes that if it can get the Congress to vote for impeachment, that the Senate will reject the claim; at the same time, there is another faction that believes if the RNC can reject the impeachment, they can push the information – as they did with Senate Phase II – until after the election. However, there’s a problem. The State elections can backfire against the RNC. Those states where the RNC gets in the way, or blocks action on the State Resolution – the public is going to ask why, and compare the RNC approach in other states. Again, the RNC is in a no-win situation. If they delay action on the State Resolutions, they’ll be part of the problem; if they vote for impeachment, they’ll be nailing their man against the wall; if they don’t vote for impeachment, they’ll have to explain why they were concerned about the Patriot Act – and wanted more information – but do not want information about the President’s larger problems. If the RNC is faced with a State Proclamation – the RNC will be in a no win situation: No matter what they do, it’s going to get worse. And this was what drove the RNC members to defect and defy the President -- over the NYT revelations and the NSA warrantless surveillance – when they voted against the President on the Patriot Act. The State Proclamation will also do something which the RNC has largely been able to suppress: Major headlines on RNC problems. Consider the Abram off kickbacks. Some of the Indian Reservations also gave money to the DNC. That’s not a problem. What the RNC would like the public to believe is that “someone who gives money – and gave money to Abram off – always has tainted money.” But that’s absurd. First, consider this in generic terms. If something like a bank loans money to you for your house – that is fine. But suppose the same bank accidentally loans money to a criminal. Let’s suppose that criminal gets caught. Consider this: If the bank gets into trouble, does that mean “the loan or money the bank gave to you is wrong?” Of course not. Just because a bank loans money to a criminal, it doesn’t mean that all money flowing from the bank to all people is tainted; nor does it mean that the money that the bank gave you is for crimes; not does it mean that because you bought a house with the loan from that bank that you lose your house or have to give it back. The State Level Proclamation changes the debate. It shifts the 2006 Rove agenda from the illusions and hand waving over Iraq and Pirates, to Article 1 Section 8 and the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The issue will be: All the RNC votes in December 2005 and April 2006 relate to the same thing: The NYT and the NSA violations of the FISA Act. If the RNC membership is inconsistent, and votes against impeachment, this will mean they are doing something that is opposite what they did in December. But there is a real chance – because of this issue -- that they will lose their seats, and the House will shift to DNC Control. This is the dilemma: What is to be done to preserve the RNC control of the House. If the RNC votes for the State resolution – the President is impeached. If they vote against the State Resolution, the President may be saved, but the RNC may lose control – leaving it up to the post 2006 Congress to vote again – and impeach. Either way, the President is going to be impeached. So the RNC membership has to ask: Am I going to vote with my party, an possibly lose my seat; or do I honor my oath, and vote to find out; or do I abstain, and let the majority of voters in other states decide what is best for my constituents. Here’s the trick. The RNC membership knows it has a problem. It will direct those RNC seats that are likely to be lost to go ahead and vote for the impeachment; and all those seats they want to save are going to vote against or abstain. However, keep in mind – the RNC really doesn’t want to do this – and they’d rather make it all go away: Which is the reason they hope to distract the Congress and country with Iran. Small problem: The RNC didn’t count on the state level proclamations. There’s nothing the RNC can do to stop a DNC-controlled state from doing exactly what the RNC never expected: Issue a proclamation and mandate a vote – up or down – before May 2006. Bluntly, the RNC has a major problem on their hands. Not only do they know this – but they also hope to get their membership to commit to certain positions – before revealing the danger of committing. In other words, the RNC leadership is now setting up their own membership – with the hopes of future promises or other valuable items of consideration – if desirable results are achieved. But there is a problem: If the RNC goes too far with violations of the law – as has already been the case with Ambramoff, Libby, Iraq WMD, DWM, torture, rendition – then the Grand Jury will simply have more evidence to consider. Bush and Cheney know this. They need a distraction. But they miscalculated. They didn’t expect the State Proclamation. The RNC took the bait after the NYT article. They focused on the immediate legal problem for the White House, but they’ve left their RNC members to hang in the wind. This is why the RNC defied the President – the RNC membership knows that they can no longer be sure the President will be “not impeached”. The last thing the RNC membership wants to do is get in the way of something that is going to happen – and then face a backlash at home. But there’s a small problem. The State Proclamation will require the States to consider the Senate Judiciary Hearing results. Not only may the problem for the RNC be in the national level, but it could very well be in the state level. Bluntly, a national issue like NSA lawlessness may disrupt the RNC powerbase in your state and local elections – simply because the voters now realize that their state’s action or inaction will say something about the type of people that are in power. The RNC never expected that this issue would appear. But what makes it worse is that the RNC faces a real possibility of not only having their President impeached, but in losing the majority at the Federal and state level across the nation. Surely, there are some RNC controlled states that will do nothing. But the voters are doing to wonder: Do these people really want to know what is going on? The answer is no. Whether the voters use that information remains to be seen. This is what is driving the RNC national leadership to shift the debate. But consider this: Given the RNC’s real position is crumbling, and there are no legal foundations for what has happened, this means the RNC can only move forward using non-sense. Small problem. After 9-11 the public was all revved up, and ready to blindly do anything. Here we are – 4 years later, and no Bin Laden after Tora Bora – and the public finds out about the NSA spying and the real chance that one of the states is going to take action. This is a rude wake up call and the public isn’t swallowing it like it was just after 9-11. Hence, in December 2005 the RNC defined their President. It’s only going to get worse. And this is why Rove is pushing to have the “big debate” and “national focus” on national security issues. Indeed they should be: Rove’s answer is to ignore Article 1 section 8 and focus on something else: In other words, Rove’s solution is going to make the RNC position less stable. Bluntly, the Rove approach is the one that is devoid of legal foundation. Bush has no single replacement for Rove, and it’s more troubling that the transition will occur in the summer of 2006, on the eve of the 2006 elections. But it gets worse. Enter Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury. They’ve reviewed the Yoo documents over torture; it is clear what Article 1 Section 8 is all about: Congress has the power to make rules related to military related things: Facilities, pirates, buildings, and personnel who are in service of the United States. What did the President do? He violated the law. The President is in service of the US, so according to Article 1 Section 8 – he’s subject to the rules Congress makes. Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to make rules – regardless whether we are or are not at war – related to all things in the FISA: NSA, equipment, facilities. The only thing the RNC can do is divert attention from Article 1 Section 8, and pretend that this is “all perfectly normal” and that “this activity” was permitted. Yet, they are unable to point to a specific clause in Article 1 Section 8 that is consistent with this assertion. The President already lied about WMD. The Grand Jury knows this. This tends to tip the scale against the President. Keep in mind, the RNC membership see what is going on. There are three options: B and C will result in the RNC losing control of the House in 2006 and have a backlash at the local level. A means they’re admitting reality – but hoping the Senate will oppose fact finding. Enter Phase II and the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. Small Problem – the Grand Jury has already reviewed the information and has information about why things are behind and delayed in the Senate. Now go through the same with the Senate. It takes 2/3 to convict. Only 33 or 34 are up for re-election every two years. The RNC calculations over what was at risk have to be reworked: Not simply because of the NSA issue, but the real possibility that the impeachment will show up in the Senate. No longer can the RNC assume the senate “will not have to deal with this issue.” Rather, the Senators face a real dilemma: Again, the above was not factored into Rove’s 2006 plan – meaning, he will have to adjust – giving the DNC more time to point out the problems with the old plan, and the new plan. Thus, it remains to be seen whether the April/May timeline for a State Proclamation will give the Senate Enough time to review the matter; or whether Fitzgerald has a second set of indictments related to WMD and Plame. Let’s put aside Fitzgerald for the moment, and focus exclusively on the State Level Proclamation. The issue is going to be: How long will it take to investigate. The key is to keep the list of issues short; if the list is too long, it will drag past the 2006 elections – just what the RNC wants. At the same time – it remains to be seen how the Senate Judiciary Hearings into the NSA warrantless surveillance play out – will the Senators have a lot of information – and if they fail to vote for conviction, how will this play out. Specifically, the State Proclamation issue raises a real problem: It is one thing for the RNC leadership to assert “this will never happen” – all the while having no idea what the States are doing; and quite another for a Senator to face a real vote on an issue they never expected to escape from committee. It is one thing to say a conviction will never happen when you expect the charges to stay suppressed in an RNC controlled Committee; quite another when your are surprised with a State proclamation that RNC members have voted for, and the Senate is faced with a real issue. We judge the current polling related to issues of impeachment and Senate convictions to be up in the air. The Senate level debates and subsequent RNC stonewalling could undermine support of key RNC Senators with political weight. It remains to be understood whether the President sees the writing on the wall and resigns in the summer of 2005. We judge the President, facing a potential indictment and likely loss of Rove through the Fitzgerald indictment, will likely fight it out. However, the NSA and CIA – given the outrageous White House disdain for reality – are likely to continue to coordinate with GCHQ and other foreign intelligence to forward material evidence of criminal activity to the media, Congress, and Grand Jury. Unless the President resigns, GCHQ will likely be the source of the backup files which Attorney Fitzgerald, the Grand Jury, and the Senate ultimately review during the Senate conviction phase. We judge the data has already been secured and awaits the outcome of the Summer 2006 political process. At this juncture, it is unclear whether the President’s term will be cut short by which catalyst: We do not anticipate the President will complete his term of office in 2008. Given this assumption, going backwards from 2008, the RNC membership will make decisions to put their party and majority in the House first, and most likely order articles of impeachment. However, if they fail to act, the States stand ready to proceed, mores likely as the RNC leadership fails to realize the likely 2008 outcome and transition to the DNC. The RNC already had a major problem on their hands: Their party rejected the President over the Patriot Act. However, we’ve seen that votes to condemn torture mean nothing when you have a Presidential signing statement asserting the opposite. Now the RNC has a surprise: At the very time that they’ve committed to a 2006 election plan, all their planning goes out the window. No longer can they be sure of a correction and discipline their members; nr longer can they be sure that Iran will be the catalyst for more mindless Congressional votes. Rather, the NSA issue combined with the state level discussions will require the RNC to rework their approach. There is a problem. They will be inconsistent, and the needed time to remedy these problems has already lapsed. This correction should have started in the wake of the 2004 indictments against Delay. The RNC has waited this many months, and it has finally sunk in: The RNC can no longer be sure that its party members in Congress will support their present. This leads us back to the two vertical boxes. The leadership had calculated it could keep people in line. Now, the leadership and membership are going to split. The leadership is out of touch of the details; but the membership is getting feedback on the State level proclamations. The RNC leadership will not have done the calculus, and simply assert – “The President will never be impeached – we have the majority” not realizing that the issue doesn’t have to come out of the RNC Controlled Judiciary Committee. In other words, the RNC leadership is actually committed to the wrong 2006 plan, and they’re going to realize well after April 2006 that they have even less time. The RNC membership already decided in December 2005: No longer can they support their plan. So going forward, the RNC is going to horizontally split into two larger groups: Those who are blindly loyal to the RNC – not realizing that there’s a surprise waiting for them and they need to adjust – and the ones who are using their brain – and realize that the states are debating NSA spying in the Context of Article 1 section 8. Even if the RNC leadership asserts FISA statute is unconstitutional, this means nothing. Article 1 Section 8 clearly identifies the situations which apply today: Piracy, people in support of US objectives, transportation of personnel, and the rules related to military facilities and militias. In the end, the issue will not be about Iran or national security – it will be about Article 1 Section 8: The States are going to figure this out. The problem for the RNC leadership is that rather than consider this information or the real shift in the debate, they are going to do what they’ve always done: Create more non0-sense, distraction, excuses, and frivolous legal arguments. There’s one small problem. The public knows about it. And the States are now preparing to debate the issue. No longer is Congress the only forum to decide these issues – the matter is something that will be discussed at the local level. This is why it important to have your state officials reviews the matters before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even if the hearings are boring – as they were with the Alito hearing – encourage your state officials to remain focused, alert, and know that they may have an important role to play in debating these issues in their state – not just on the floor of your State’s legislature, but also during the state primaries. The voters are going to have questions – especially when the states have a role to play in this impeachment process. Here’s the bottom line: The States have an important role. You can’t simply ignore the real possibility that the State Proclamations – combined with the additional evidence to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee – can tip the balance. RNC may be demanding that the issue be national security – but the real issue is Article 1 section 8. An impeachment resolution is on the horizon. If the RNC defeats the resolution, Bush will likely face an impeachment after the 2006 election when the RNC loses control of the House. If the RNC is strong, and votes for the rule of law – the RNC membership may take action that is not consistent with their state’s desire to be in denial. They may lose their individual seat. Either way, it is more likely than not the President will be impeached by June 2006; if he isn’t impeached before the 2006 elections, then the RNC will likely lose control of the House, and the President will be subsequently impeached in January 2007. The States are going to face additional training and law enforcement manning issues. Not only with the high turnover rates continue, but we forecast the Iraqi manning requirements will continue to drain experienced personnel. The States are not positioned well to more effectively oversee the Field Training Officers. More attention will be needed in the no-notice field visits; and random sampling of the videos of the citizen encounters. Be mindful for off camera communications, video splicing, and gaps in the audit tapes. Citizens should be mindful of what constitutes a pre-textual stop and appropriately assert their right to silence. The chance of error during law enforcement and citizen encounters will rise, likely increasing premiums. We anticipate cartel like behavior to occur within the insurance industry demanding certain kickbacks for favorable rates. In the meantime, between now and January 2007 there will be more information to consider related to malfeasance and other improper conduct, well known to the RNC, JTTF, NSA, CIA and DHS: We recommend the Grand Jury review the JTTF cell phone data, and identify potential witnesses in the informant program; then compare this data with the law enforcement databases; and look for patterns in the reporting, subsequent investigations, subpoenas. For follow-up we recommend focusing on samples of data when promises were made to do something, but was not done; and look for informants who are likely to be able to produce information contradicting the existing documents. We have copies of the shredded documents, plans, which have been successfully reconstructed. Local informants, when they realize the scope of the law enforcement misconduct and betrayal, are likely to cooperate with the grand jury. Some informants have a desire to retaliate against their handlers over missed opportunities. The discoverable phone records will prove to be a gold mine. Going forward, the issue is to remember our jobs--Preserve the Constitution. Bluntly, the reason this mess exists is Article 1 section 8 – but this has been explained away. We recommend increasing staffing for the Congressional staff to engage in real oversight, not the current rubber stamping approach. We recommend all public officials get refresher training on their oaths of office, and focus on Article 1 Section 8 – with the intent of emphasizing the separation of powers, regardless combat operations. A president might be unlawfully use military force – but that use of force does not mean the nation is at war. Rather, the nation has a tyrant unlawfully using force in a manner outside Article 1 Section 8 – related to the lawful use of force by people in support of the Untied States – namely the President. There is no legal foundation for the White House. They are not expecting the states to take action. The RNC is fissuring into 5 camps. No matter what they do, they are going to fail. The President will likely be impeached between June 2006 and January 2007. The defections within the RNC will continue, further compounded by the State Level proclamation issues. The RNC wants to focus on national security as a distraction from impeachment and Article 1 Section 8. We judge the likely constitutional challenge to FISA will occur immediately in the wake of adverse information from the Senate Judiciary; the RNC appears to moving to start this court challenge during the hearings, but DoJ counsel appears to be well prepared to prevail. Bluntly, they have no legal foundation and have to rely on extraordinarily creative twists of the case law to justify their arguments. The objective of the State Proclamation is to remind the RNC that if they fail to exercise leadership and assert their oaths of office, the states are in a position to do something. The RNC will have to commit to something they believe they can hide in committee. The RNC has a problem: Whether they commit to a vote, or take no action – their conduct will get debated at the local level in the context of the Patriot Act and December 2005 repudiation of the President. The RNC is in a no-win situation. The leadership knows this. The membership senses this. All that’s needed is for the RNC and membership to face reality. But they pretend something else. The State Proclamation will simply accelerate events, disrupt the RNC 2006 plan , and shift the debate from illusions to the rule of law. The state citizens are the ones who control the agenda – and they have awoken to their power. Nothing the RNC can do will put them back in the bottle they’ve been kept since 9-11, even the threat of martial law. We fully expect the RNC-PNAC to orchestrate a number of events raising questions over the Posse Comitatus, and whether the State Legislators are a threat to the US Security. It is likely these charges will be overblown, but it remains unclear whether the individual legislators will be targeted. We would hope that the state officials and citizens realize there is a real potential for abuse, but not to be afraid to speak out about perceived threats, intimidation, or other inappropriate comments. It is troubling that state officials may perceive law enforcement will not be responsive to what are arguably partisan battles – but there is a real threat of intimidation which must be taken seriously. Only one state of the 50 needs to take action; but as the RNC problems surface, and the vulnerabilities rear themselves, it is likely more within the House will see that it would be best to avoid the embarrassment of state Legislators doing what the congress should do: Discuss and investigate an issue related to violations of the constitution and US Statue. We do not anticipate that the threat of “embarrassment” will be the catalyst for action; rather, it will be the subsequent disclosures of evidence showing perjury before the Senate Judiciary. The normal Congressional testimony-game – never say more than the question asks – will be in full play; and 5th Amendment assertions well rehearsed. If there is enough stonewalling, the states may simply drive home the point with repeated proclamations demanding the House investigate. Keep in mind the Grand Juries which are reviewing the matters. This is another prong to the fork of justice. As Fitzgerald has said, remain calm. There is a sense of doom and foreboding within the RNC. Be patient. There are many players working behind the scenes to resolve this issue in a manner consistent with the rule of law. Go read Article 1 Section 8 – you’ll understand what this is all about. End Scrolling Box 1 |
Scolling Box Two: FISA is Constitutional per Article 1 Section 8.
Second, this scrolling box outlines in detail why the State Proclamation is needed. Bluntly, the RNC is about to attempt the most absurd approach: They are in the process of drafting memoranda calling for FISA to be found unconstitutional.
Again, this is absurd. Simply read Article 1 Section 8: The Congress is given the power to make rules related to military facilities [NSA]. The problem this President has is that he has asserted that "we are at war" -- this ensures that Congress' rule making authority through Article 1 section 8 clashes and mandates that the President -- as a person is service of the United States -- is required to assent to the rules/laws with Congress has passed.
FISA, if we embrace the President's argument about war, then becomes a war-related rule which Congress has lawfully passed.
This discussion in the following scrolling box goes into detail on why the FISA is constitutional; and that the President has clearly violated several provisions within Article 1 Section 8.
Your job as a blogger is to remind your peers -- there is hope; that the RNC is in a now win situation; and that Rove remains under investigation by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury.
The RNC, again, is in a no-win situation. Any assertion that FISA is unconstitutional is absurd, and simply reminds us that the RNC has no option other than to spew forth non-sense.
Remind your friends that the RNC is in the last throes, and the RNC membership has to choose between the rule of law -- and honor their oath to Article 1 Section 8; or they are going to lose. There is nothing the RNC can do to stop at least one of the 50 states from issuing the state proclamation.
Again, the deadline is 01 March 2006, or the States will intervene.
Choose wisely.
Here is the scrolling box discussion about Article 1 section 8, and the conclusion that the FISA is consistent with Article 1 Section 8; any claim that FISA is unconstitutional is merely evidence DoJ staff counsel have no options.
Scrolling Box 2: Article 1 Section 8 Shows us FISA is constitutional. The issue is FISA Constitutionality. That’s right: The White House admits it has no legal defense – rather than argue the facts, it has to argue over the law. Rest assured, this argument will fail. The White House’s only option is then to argue – as they always do – over reality. When exploring issues of Constitutionality, we simply look at the document: The Constitution. A simple analysis asks us whether the statute is or is not constitutional. This means whether there are rights that are violated; or powers that are negated; conversely, this also means looking at whether there are rights created that are not allowed, or prohibited; and also looking at whether there are new powers created that are not permitted, or belong somewhere else. Think in general terms: What does the Constitution say; and does the Constitution permit or deny what the statute says; and does the statute permit or restrict something that should otherwise be prohibited or allowed. The standard of analysis applies to duties, responsibilities, rights, and power. The analysis does not apply in matters were there is no requirement, or issues of clear discretion. One cannot assert discretion where there is a clear law; nor can the law exist with discretion. Discretion is a human quality, existing with the act and the enforcement, discretionary behavior is unrelated to literal text -- the law or Constitution. Discretion is only lawful in enforcement not in compliance. Some laws if not enforced may with discretion be abandoned; but the law is not foregone simply out of lack of interest. The law remains. It is the duty of the society to ensure the law is asserted, otherwise we no longer have the rule of law. The principle is whether there is harmony between the statute in question and the Constitution. Remember, the trump card is the constitution. Practice and custom does not create power unless the power is recognized as lawful. For the moment, let’s put aside facts, reality, and the Constitution, and focus on the White House argument. The White House would have us believe that the FISA statute is unconstitutional. Fine, let us explore this premise. First, the question arises: IF the FISA statute is unconstitutional – namely out of harmony with the Constitution – why did the White House, as they admit, comply with the FISA to begin with? In short, a reasonable debate should end here. By asserting that the FISA statute is unconstitutional – while admitting that was following the FISA statute in most cases – the White House requires us to believe that it was following a requirement it knew to be inconsistent with the rule of law: The Constitution. This is a fatal admission. In other words, if we are to believe the White House’s assertion – that the FISA statute is unconstitutional – the White House cannot explain why it was following something that was out of harmony with the law of the land. Indeed, as we review the FISA statute, we find that there is something called the Congress. This is the small body down the street which has a nasty habit of doing something called “making laws.” This is called “legislative activity.” During the enactment process, the White House fails to point to any discussion or formal protest over the Constitutionality of the FISA. Rather, it does the opposite – it blindly obeys what is deems to be unlawful. Is this a surprise? Of course not. The White House is not playing stupid – it is stupid. But let’s embrace the White House argument further. Nuzzle it close. Tender it the sweet affection it affords. The White House asserts that the FISA statute is unconstitutional. OK. Let’s ponder that again. But form a slightly different direction. Notice the slight qualification the White House offers. The FISA statute is unconstitutional because it is a “time of war.” OK. Consider that. The White House wants us to believe the notion that the law of the land – as the White House and Congress jointly agreed prior to its enactment – is something that is contrary to the rule of law. How convenient this “divine wisdom” is now used as a defense. Curious, at the time of the signing statement over the torture amendment – the White House asserted that the torture amendment would be construed in a matter that permitted the opposite of what Congress intended: Abuse and torture. Does this mean that the White House – despite assenting to the terms of a bill – is subsequently using its own signing statements and interpretation of that law – as the basis to then find the law is unconstitutional? Indeed, it appears we have a pattern. Law gets passed. Everyone cheers. White House doesn’t like it. Ignores it. Get’s caught. And then says the law is contrary to the law of the land: Our constitution. Wait: Didn’t the White House just say that this was a time of war? Oh, surely – this would be the explanation. Well, the Constitution doesn’t agree. In other words, the White House asserts “during a time of war” the FISA statute is unconstitutional. OK, let’s consider that. What does the Constitution say about war, and about the law, and the role of Congress? Put aside the notion of whether the war is lawful or declared – another matter, the White House hopes to ignore. Let’s consider the White House assumption/assertion: That because we are at war, that the White House need not assent to the rule of law; and that because the law is unconstitutional, during a time of war the law not be followed. OK. Suffice it to say, there’s a problem. Because if we accept the premise that we are at war – the Constitution is quite clear. Indeed, the President is the commander in Chief. But this power does not extend to legislative matters. Rather, during times of war, the Congress has the exclusive power over legislative matters. Indeed, perhaps the White House would have us believe that the NSA is excluded, that the FISA statute does not apply, or that the NSA is somehow “unfairly, unconstitutionally” regulated by the FISA statute. That seems reasonable. But there is a small problem. The Constitution. Again, during times of war all buildings, facilities, and other resources called upon to serve the war effort fall under the Congressional power – Congress has the Constitutional power to make rules over the facilities, the militia. But the White House argues that the warrantless surveillance program only applies to foreign nationals. Ah, well the Constitution also states that congress has the exclusive legislative power to regulate captures on the seas and regulate the rules over piracies. Surely, if the White House is fighting an evil foe, and they are foreign, but are using our resources, then a reasonable person might presume they are an outlaw, or what was referred to as a pirate. In this case, the Constitution is clear – the Congress has the exclusive power to regulate, legislate, and define the rules. Here’s the rub: All of this occurs during wartime. In other words, because the White House is asserting the “we’re in war, and we have inherent authority to do something,” the white House is admitting that the war-related rule making clauses of the Constitution is still in effect. This is another way of saying: The White House, by asserting we are at war – as an excuse not be subject to the FISA – is arguing against it self. The White House – by asserting we are at war – is not making the credible argument that it is immune from the law – rather, this assertion of war-time is a fatal argument: It binds the White House to the war nexus – namely, Congress during times of war still has exclusive legislative powers over the facilities and actions. Broadly, if the White House is to be believed – that we are at war, and the FISA statute is not constitutional – the White House cannot explain why Congress has no role in the application of the FISA statute. Again, the FISA statute is merely a war related tool which Congress retains as a Constitutional power of legislation which relates to the various military related personnel, facilities, and activities. Bluntly, by asserting “we are at war” and “the FISA is unconstitutional” the White House asserts a nexus which ensures Congress’s legislative role – through the FISA act – is affirmed. In short, the White House has argued against itself. Put aside the above for the moment. Let’s consider the broad notion of constitutionality. Again, there are four general rules: Next, we consider the general notion of the FISA statute. This is a law that is a legislative act of Congress and the White House has assented to. The White House has a problem. It hopes to argue that the FISA act is “unconstitutional.” But has the White House shown that it was lawfully restrained? No. The White House has asserted that the law was a standard it did not want to follow. Some days, if the weather was favorable and Judge Lamberth faced a reasonably reliable FBI agent, the DoJ faced minimal threat of having their shorts torn – as they well need. However, on other days, when the FBI dogs appear before the FISA court, lie, and issue bullshit in the affidavits, guess who goes crying to daddy Gonzalez? That’s right: The stupid FBI agents. So what does the White House do? It says the FISA statute – that it was following – is not constitutional. Brilliant. We await the White House explanation why it was assenting to a law it knew, or should have know was unlawful. We await the appropriate mix of swine, drool, and bubbly to explain this. If there is anything unconstitutional about the FISA statute, this is something for the White House to prove, not simply assert. Again, the White House has to show that the FISA statute violated the Constitution in one of the following ways: A and C are excluded because the Constitution does not recognize the White House as having any rights – it only has powers: We are left with two options: Both seem reasonable to consider. The issue before us: What was done, and how did the contact contrast with what the Constitution requires and permits. First, let’s consider the Congressional powers. Congress has the power to legislate at all times. The FISA statute is the fruit of that legislative activity. The White House would have us believe that – because it is war time – the enacted statute is unconstitutional. However, the Constitution specifically states that the Congress shall have the rule making power – legislative power – to define things: Tasks, activities, discipline, and buildings – things that are needed to support. And there is one broad power: Congress has the exclusive legislative power to ensure that all the things Congress has the power to do, Congress is given the power to pass laws to do that. Again, Congress has the lawful power to pass laws. This means that during times of war – Congress retains this power to pass laws. The Constitution says so. The Constitution also says that the Congress has the power to make all laws permitting Congress to do what it is supposed to do: Regulate things related to the war, like treatment of prisoners, pirates, and how buildings are run. Here’s the problem for the White House. The Constitution does not change. During a time of war, Congress still has the legislative power to make rules. The rules related to warfare include the FISA statute. Whether this statute is or is not followed is another matter. But Congress has the power under the Constitution to state how militias, buildings, and resources are used, raised, and funded. Congress also has the power to define the rules for captures. The FISA statute is a set of rules that say how information will be captured. The FISA statute is inherently consistent with what the Constitution says: It gives the Congress the power to make the rules necessary to carry out this function. The President cannot claim any power has been taken from him. Rather, the FISA statute gives him many options to comply with the law. The President fails to state how the FISA statute creates a power for Congress. Rather, the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass the FISA statute. In truth, what is happening is the White House is asserting for itself a right to violate the law. The Constitution does not afford him that power. Rather, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Let’s consider the two options that we rejected: What is happening is the White House is asserting it has a right to do something which the Congress has not permitted. This is like someone saying, “I know I don’t have that right, but I’m going to do it anyway.” OK. That’s called a violation of the law. The law is like a line in the sand. It is a boundary. The law is a guide. It is a reminder. The law is there as a lesson of what one should do or not do. There’s something called responsibilities and duties. It is foreseeable that the FISA statute was intended to apply at all times. The FISA statute does not contain a provision that waives enforcement during periods of unfavorable weather. Had the Congress intended the FISA statute to not apply at certain times, Congress would have included that language in the statute. We see no language. Thus, we conclude there is no waiver. The President has the responsibility to discuss concerns. If the law does not permit him to do something that he think he ought to do, then the law should be changed. The law was not changed. The President decided he would do something that the law did not permit. The President has a responsibility and duty to explain himself. Whether he does or does not it irrelevant. The evidence before us suggests that despite the law, the President does not wish to assent to this law. He made a grave error. We are a nation of laws. The Constitution exists as a guide. All rights and powers not granted to the government are retained by the states and people. The Constitution does not afford the President the right or power to violate the law; and that right and power is not something that is a lawful exception. Rather, this is lawlessness. That means moving without concern for the law. During impeachment, the Congress decides whether the President did or didn’t violate the law. During a smokescreen effort – as we are now – the President will appeal to the court to make the world believe that the law is wrong. The President has not explained why he followed the law, but now says it is wrong. Why was the President following the wrong long? The answer is that the law is right, and the President is . . . [wait for it ] . . .wrong. The President wants you to believe that “everything else” is wrong – but he is right. Yet, where does the President point? He points to the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to make rules. We have a rule. The problem: The President doesn’t like the rule. The rule means that Judge Lamberth gets to review something, and tell the FBI agents where to stick it. Judge Lamberth is your friend. He is not like an FBI agent. FBI agents lie. Judge Lamberth is a nice person. Judge Lamberth knows about fatal admissions before the court, and is well versed in perjury and false affidavits. Do you see the FBI agent walking around with his tail between his legs? It is because smart people like Judge Lamberth know the law, and the FBI agents like to lie. Judge Lambert: Smiley face. Lying FBI agent before the court with bogus affidavit: Unhappy face. Judge: Happy. FBI: Unhappy. The purpose of the Constitution is to check power. Our government divides power. We have a system that does not let all the power get into one hands. One type of power is rule making. That means making laws. Another kind of power is enforcing the law. That means making sure the law is followed. Congress makes laws. The President follows laws. That is his job. He gets paid a lot of money to do his job. And he also gets a nice jet. He can eat popcorn in it and write notes to his friends on his computer. The purpose of the FISA statute is to check power. The President likes to use the FISA statute to create bullshit. The RNC approach to life is based on absurdity. The only option the White House and RNC have at this point is to define the NSA as something it is not. The White House cannot call the NSA facility a building – because that means that the Congress will have the power to make a rule or law about that military related facility. So, we eagerly wait to read the latest White House Counsel and DoJ non-sense: Indeed, the White House appears to be on the verge of defining the NSA as something that it is not: Neither a building, nor a structure, nor related to any military effort. Sort of like the convenient legal bullshit John Yoo or someone else wrote when he talked about the “special class” of people who are not subject to the laws related to humans. If the people who are detained are “not humans” what are they? John Yoo or someone like him made up a new word called, “Enemy combatant” in order to get around the rules. Small problem: The rules were still there, and so was the bullshit. Let’s consider the problem the White House has. Congress can make rules. Congress makes rules related to the military and facilities. Congress can make rules about the DoD. Congress knows the NSA is part of DoD. Questions: It remains to be seen how the NSA is recast. Perhaps the White House will call it a poodle, or a rock. That would mean that all the people working in the NSA work in a place that is inside of a dog or a rock. Do you know what is inside of a dog? That’s right: Dog poop. Perhaps the White House will redefine the situation as something other than war. That way, they believe, Congress can’t do anything. If it isn’t a war, then the rules don’t apply. But wait a minute: Doesn’t Congress get to define when there is or isn’t a war. So if Congress hasn’t decided we’re at war, then the President can’t say we are. That means if the President says we’re using military forces – regardless whether it is a war or not – those forces have to be used in a manner that is consistent with the law. NSA is in the military. NSA supports the military. There’s also a statute that says the military may not be used for law enforcement. So is the NSA being used for domestic law enforcement, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act? The situation is well understood. We have a Constitution. The President is using military forces. The rules in which they can or cannot be used are defined by Congress. The Constitution grants this exclusive power to the Congress. The problem the White House has is that it has no defense. But rather than give up and admit an error, it keeps doing things. Notice the pattern: It violates the law, then says the law does not apply with torture, rendition, and wiretapping. The laws are clear. The arguments are weak. The violations are known. The only option this President has is to recast the law or the situation. But we know war is foreseeable. The framers envisioned war. War is not extraordinary, neither are pirates. Pirates seize ships. Air pirates seize planes. There are rules about fighting pirates. The president doesn’t like the rules. Congress made rules. The President doesn’t like the fact that Congress has the power to make rules about pirates. The President is not a very happy person. Maybe he should take a walk. And clear his head. Maybe his dog needs a walk as well. To run around and chase some spiders. Will his dog chew through his leash – or maybe the dog would like a different color of dog leash. Yes, something that is a lighter shade, with a touch of white speckles, in the shape of a trail of circles. That would be nice. There’s a problem with the President’s characterization of the situation. He wants to define this situation as extraordinary. Wait a minute. Think about what was going on before 9-11. The President, although he did not have an authorization to wiretap, was wiretapping. What did the President know before 9-11? What changed after 9-11 – nothing, the President was still wiretapping. So think about this: Before 9-11 he was wiretapping; and after 9-11 he was wiretapping. Today, he wants us to believe this is extraordinary. But, why didn’t the President say that before 9-11? Why didn’t the President say “this is an extraordinary situation”? The president is silent. The President keeps pointing to the authorization to use force. But why is he doing that? The President is saying it was “not foreseeable” – but the Patriot Act was already written. How can someone prepare for something they say is “not foreseeable,” but have a plan ready for that “unforeseeable event”? In order to plan, you must have an idea. A vision. A notion of what to expect. The RNC and White House cannot define the situation as extraordinary – the situation had note changed – the warrantless monitoring continued before and after 9-11. The only ting that changed was the oversight – less of it – with the authorization for use of force. The change in oversight did not change the Constitution. The Constitution is clear. The Congress has the power to make laws. The president has the duty to follow those laws. He took an oath to do so. But the President didn’t do what he promised. The President is a very bad man. It is curious that the pre 9-11 monitoring occurred despite the “unforeseeable attacks”. Clearly, someone foresaw the attacks: That’s why they were monitoring. Someone foresaw something: That’s why they wrote a Patriot Act, which the courts have found to be largely unconstitutional, and the Congress has put on hold. “Hay, now that we’ know you’re violation the law, and the NYT decided to share with the world what it was sitting on – a very stinky legal egg – maybe we ought to reconsider this entire Patriot Act.” Why would someone monitor something that was “not foreseeable”? What was going on before 9-11 that would trigger monitoring? Why would we believe that the basis for the authorization for use of force were based on real information and not fraud? Nobody needs “new powers” when they are already doing something that violates the law. What they need is a new leash. One that is made of chains and connected to a large black ball. Libby. The problem the White House has is that they are in trouble. They violated the law without any excuse. The White House is arguing against itself. How the White House defines the situation – war -- is well within the bounds of law and the Constitutional power of Congress: To make rules and laws – like the FISA act -- related to wars, resources, facilities, and buildings. The law is clear. The Presidents’ legal arguments are without legal foundation. The President is a bad man. Let’s consider the specific language within the Constitution and how it relates to the NSA. Let’s pretend the White House is writing its normal legal non-sense. Let’s consider this: Is the NSA a place? Or is it more of an idea? Or is it more of a illusion? Put aside the White House illusion for the moment, but deal with reality – Ft. Meade is actually a real place. We have records of NSA police making plans, writing plans, planning, and then planning to plan. That’s kind of interesting. Even if the President violates the law – the new mode that the forces are used then subject the President to a new classification which the President must comply. In other words, even if we buy the argument that FISA doesn’t apply – Congress doesn’t lose the power to make rules over the NSA, regardless whether the President does or doesn’t lawfully use them, or chooses to characterize them in another way. This is the unique feature of the Constitution. If the President wants to call a fox something else like sheep, he can’t say that the power of Congress to make rules about the movement of foxes doesn’t apply because he’s moving sheep. Rather, Congress still has the power to make rules, regardless whether the president wants to call it a fox or a sheep. This President wants to call the Constitutional powers of Congress Unconstitutional. However, the President doesn’t have the power to define what is or isn’t Constitutional – that’s up to Judge Lamberth. And when Judge Lamberth says, “Bad FBI agent – you lied in your affidavit, don’t come back” – the President hen says, “OK, I’m not going back, but I’m going to violate the law because I say it is OK.’ Strange, Congress and the Constitution still have a say so. And Judge Lamberth, even though the FBI doesn’t like the fact that he’s smart, still has a vote. “Bad, bad FBI agent – evil!” But the demons will not go away. They must be exorcised with an impeachment. The Constitutionality of FISA during wartime is curious. The Constitution says the Congress has the power to “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the seas and offenses against the laws of nations.” This means that the FISA statute – something that is a rule – is within the Power of congress – it defines what conduct is or is against the laws of the United States. Let’s check: The United States is a nation. The United States does have a Constitution. Therefore, we conclude, the United States is a nation of laws; and that Congress has the power to define and punish offenses. The FISA statute is a definition. It’s kind of a rule. More of a list of rules. And the Constitution doesn’t give the President the power to ignore them. In fact, the President has said “we’re at war, so I make the rules.” But the Constitution clearly states that during war – a period where military conduct is occurring on the seas, in the air, or on the land – Congress still has a role in defining offenses against the US. Not the president. But Congress. In fact, the constitution specifically mentions wartime – so the President cannot claim “because it is wartime, this is different.” Rather, this is the same – congress still has the power to define offenses related to military actions, regardless whether they are located on the water, under the water, under the ground, in a prison, or in the air. Let’s say that again: The Constitution gives Congress the power to make rules related to military action. Is the movement of pirates related to warfare? Yes, so congress has the power to regulate the CIA rendition program; and has the power to regulate the facilities under military control in Eastern Europe. Making rules is meaningless unless those rules are followed and enforced if violated. The problem we have is that those who are supposed to enforce the laws – the President – is the one who is violating the laws. Let’s think about that: It is a different matter whether the rule is or is not followed. The issue is: Is the Congress allowed to make the rule; and have any of the rules crossed the line? On all counts, the facilities, agencies, personnel, and forts which related to the NSA are clearly related to Constitutionally-mentioned purposes, and Congress as the exclusive legislative authority to define the rules related to their use. it doesn’t matter whether the use is during war or peace – Congress still has the power to make rules. Again, if the President wants to argue that they are a “militia” then the Present has to explain why he is allowing a militia to be sustained during peacetime, then wartime and it intrudes in our homes in violation of the law. The idea of the restriction against the military and standing armies is a notional one, but was designed to reduce debt and avoid intrusions. Yet, the Constitution does specifically restrict the government from housing the military in our homes. If the military is allowed to snoop in our private lives – with surveillance – this is really no different than the restrictions against housing and quartering troops. In other words, no matter what the White House says, or how it characterizations the situation, the constitution is clear: The Congress has the power to make the rules related to the NSA; and the FISA is well within the Congressional power to create all rules related to their use, regardless whether they are used during peace or wartime. The Constitution gives exclusive legislative powers to the Congress. FISA as applied in war is a lawful exercise of Congressional legislative powers related to military facilities. Indeed, putting aside the issue of legality, any war the President engages is subject to rules which Congress defines. The Constitution says that war is a foreseeable activity; and that pirates are subject to Congressional rules. Congress has the power to regulate facilities – which is the NSA – and people’s activities – which is what people do when creating and maintaining equipment used for surveillance. Congress has the power to create rules – and those rules are there to be followed. One issue is whether the rule itself is OK; the other is whether power to create the rule is acceptable. The White House says the FISA rule is not OK, but fails to state how it determined whether the rule was or was not constitutional and should be ignored. Rather, the President has – without Congressional or Judicial coordination – exercised single powers related to all three branches. This is contrary to our constitution One does not have the power to write rules, and decide whether the rules are Constitutional – that is the job of the other two branches, especially those which the constitution specifically states are powers which fall under the other two branches. During war, the Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to make rules. These are clear, they are not unforeseeable circumstances. We have pirates before us. The Congress has the power to make rules about pirates and what forces do when fighting pirates. One of those rules is that Congress cannot make a rule permitting violations of the Constitution. No where is there anything that suggest FISA has permitted violations; rather, FISA was designed to constrain violations. But the President now says, “If he ignores FISA he’s doing the right thing” --- how can someone: Rather, the real problem is the conduct is unlawful – and Congress has the power to regulate the conduct. The Judicial Branch – not he President – has the power to define whether the statue is unlawful. This is something for the White House to prove in court – not simply assert in order to dissuade action and oversight by Congress, the courts, or the States. Let’s consider the time element: When is something constitutional or unconstitutional? Does Constitutionality depend on time, or changing circumstances? The Constitution specifically mentions peace and war – the Congressional power related to war related activates applies whether we are in active combat, or in a support organization. These are facilities. The Constitution specifically mentions facilities, wars, and pirates – so one cannot argue that we are in a new situation, or that the situation is outside the constitution, or that the law is beyond what the Constitution permits. Rather, the Constitution is designed to be applicable regardless the time – the ebb and flow of peace, pirates, and non-sense is meaningless – the Constitution is a set of rules that applies at all times. Something is constitution without regard to [a ]the time or [b] ebb and flow of the military or warfare or [b] whether one is or is not engaged in combat or sitting in a facility in Ft. Meade. The distinctions are irrelevant: All these activities are in support of the United States, and the US law – as stated in the Constitution – is applicable. One cannot assert the law is not applicable – without explaining how the forces are unrelated to US service. We have no evidence that the NSA personnel are working for a foreign government – rather, they are working for the United States. Thus, the Constitutional clauses which grant to Congress the power to make those rules are applicable – whether those forces are engaged in warfare, combat, or sitting in Ft. Meade thinking of ways to destroy evidence of crimes. Destroying evidence of a crime is a separate offense. The initial offense is to violate the law. It remains a matter of law how many backup files exist in other locations, and to what extent specific witness have or have not been threatened to be silent about the well known evidence destruction. The President incorrectly believes that the way to defend himself is to argue over whether the country is or is not at war; or whether the situation does or does not warrant Congressional oversight. But the Constitution is clear. Pirates are mentioned – facilities are mentioned – and in both instances, the Congress has the power to regulate – make laws – about things, people, and places used in service of the United States. Clearly, the objective of the FISA statute was to do what does: Make rules about things that are in service of the United States. The president may argue that we are or are not at war. But this makes no difference. The power of Congress to make rules exists regardless their relationship to time, only in their use. The president may argue that the situation is special. But, the framers specifically discussed pirates and facilities – Congress still had the power to regulate things in support of the United States. Even if we presume that the NSA was not part of DoD, and was doing law enforcement, NSA would fall under the militia provisions, and still be subject to Congressional rule making power. Let’s consider the FISA statute itself. Does FISA restrict the President from doing something. Yes, and the Constitution permits Congress to make rules restricting him from doing something. The Constitution grants to congress the power to make rules which apply to people, facilities, and how we interact with pirates. It doesn’t matter if the pirates, people, facilities are on the moon, under the water, over the air, or at the side of a dunking tank used to drown people. The rules still exist. The rules apply because the Constitution says they apply. And the Constitution says the rules apply to things, people, and activities which support the United States. If the rules do not apply, then we have to a presume that the conduct is not in support of the Untied States, and that the conduct is in opposition to the US – this by default is the necessary element and burden to suggest there may be treason – taking up arms. Again, the President said you are either with us or against us. If you are not with the rule of law, then you must be against the rule of law; if you are not following the rules which Congress has the power to write and set, then you are against those rules. You’re either with the Constitution, or you are against the Constitution. You are either with the Untied states, or you are against the United States. This President is contrary to the Constitution. He has failed to ensure his conduct is consistent with the rule of law. His only option is to make nonsense arguments to create the illusion that the situation falls outside the Constitution. But the Constitution is blind to the situation – it is only concerned that the rules are adhered to, and power contained. Anything else, and there is a problem: Unchecked power, and violations of the law. But the President wants a green light to say the rules do not apply. Indeed, there are waivers. And the FISA permits waivers, so long as he gets a warrant after he does what he does. This is a rule. Congress has the power to make this rule. The President ignored this provision. That is a violation of the law. And the Constitution affords the Congress the power to make rules – which the President has ignored. Let’s consider the Constitutional question. Is there something in the FISA statute that is contrary to the rule of law; or something that grants powers to the President that it is not permitted? We don’t see it. The FISA is clearly consistent with the intent of affording to Congress the power to regulating all material, people and facilities used in support of the United States. FISA is constitutional because it relates to Congressional power to define the rules of war, how forces are used in employment during that war. Nothing in the FISA statute permits unlawful use or violations of the Constitution. Rather, the FISA court does a nice job of ensuring there are no violations, especially when FBI agents appear with false affidavits, and four years on they still can find no active pirate cells in the US. The cells are in Europe, under control of other US personnel which Congress also has the power to make rules about – if Congress can’t make rules about them, those people must be outlaws, not in service of the United States, and should have no sympathy if they have a problem. You are either with us and the rule of law; or you are against us and against the Constitution. The time is up. The game is over. The President fails to explain why he once followed unconstitutional laws – then asserts their unlawfulness makes them unenforceable. Let’s take the President at his word – hypothetically and perhaps hypnotically – and consider this. If the rule – which he was supposedly following – is actually unconstitutional – as he would suggest – then his prior adherence to this unconstitutional act was in violation of the Constitution. Either way, the President has violated the constitution: In following the FISA when he knew, or should have known it was not lawful; or in not following it when he knew it was lawful.. In other words, the President would have us believe that there are two co-existing realities: That the law does and does not apply at the same time. This isn’t what the law is about: The law is a rule. The Constitution is the guide. It is there stating clearly that the Congress can make rules related to the use of resources, facilities, and personnel used in support of the United States. The law applies regardless the situation, ease, or detection. The law is there. Whether people do or do not assent to that law is another matter. Let’s for the moment embrace what the President is saying: That the law is not lawful; that the FISA statute is unconstitutional. The President has not made a good showing of which laws would be lawful; nor has he said what would be a lawful alternative; nor has the President said how he plans to put into service resources, facilities, and personnel in a manner that is lawful. It appears the President has no fixed standard – and cannot say for sure whether the forces he is overseeing are or are not in support of the United States. Rather, it appears as though the forces are in support of something else besides the United States. This remains to be understood: What specific forces have been created, used, and to what end are they serving? If they are not in support of the United States, then the President has no power to command them; One cannot demand that the rules of Congress be “not applicable” but that the President is in charge of something that is not applicable or in support of the US. The only way the President’s actions, resources, and material can “not be regulated by Congress” is if they are in support of something that is contrary to the United States. Indeed, any action devoid of legal foundation is contrary to the Constitution. Thus by asserting that conditions fall outside the Constitution, the President would have us believe that the Constitution does not apply. But the President fails to cite any case law that suggests that the situation is something beyond what congress envisioned. Congress mentioned pirates, facilities, militias, resources, personnel. What else could exist that the President is in charge of, but would fall outside this definition? The only thing that can possibly exist is something that is in contravention to the United States: And that is the inherent flaw with the President’s arguments. Because all situations that we have right now – pirates, resources, facilities and personnel – are specifically mentioned. All other things are presumed to be not in support of the US. Thus, by arguing that what he is doing is “not subject to the law” the President admits that he is an outlaw, and not acting in a manner that supports the US, but it supports something else. The President’s problem is simple: He’s caught. And all his arguments fail because he’s violated the law. The argument that “FISA is unconstitutional” fails. The President cannot explain why he complied with something that was unlawful. The President cannot explain why he did not assert at the beginning that the FISA was unlawful. Rather, he chose to ignore the requirement. Rather than asserting the FISA statute was a problem at the beginning, he asserted the “unconstitutionality claim” after he got answers he didn’t like. Until the FBI agent lied, FISA was fine with the President. Until the FISA court told the President that the surveillance was improper, the President said nothing. Rather, he did something else. One cannot credibly be believed to have assented to the rule of law when they do something else. At this point, arguing that FISA is unconstitutional is a fatal admission that the President’s conduct: As Vice President Gore asked, “What’s going to stop him?” Not the law. Then it must be the rule of law imposed on him through lawful means. Or, if needed, through the lawful use of force. If one does not assent to the rule of law, then the only option free people have to assert he rule of law is through the battlefield. It is time to choose. Do you wish to engage in continued violations of the law and demand no consequences; or must you be compelled through the threat of lawful force to assent to the oath and constitution you took? Either way, the Constitution shall prevail and you shall submit to the rule of law. You will either submit freely, or you shall be lawfully compelled. We outnumber you. You cannot defeat us. You cannot prevail. Yes, you have been mislead, and your loyalty abused. You have been threatened if you dared to defy unlawful orders. But those days are coming to a close. The world sees what is going on. The evidence exists. And there is nothing you can do to change history. If you change the evidence, that will not change what happened. Congress defines the rules. The rules exist as they are. Congress defines the rules related to house all resources are used in support of the United States. The Congress always defines the rules. It doesn’t matter if the rules relate to peace or war. The Constitution does not recognize any claim that the President can define the rules, or what conduct is acceptable. This is an inherent power which belongs exclusively to Congress. By asserting the nation is at war, the President fails to credibly argue he has a special status that is outside the Constitutional provisions expressly conferring rule making power to the Congress. The President’s status does not change whether he is or is out of combat; in or out of command of the military. He still is subject to the rules which Congress passes. The President has done nothing to show that the rule violates the constitution; nor has the FISA statute been shown to take away power from the President; rather, the FISA asserts the Constitutional power of the Congress to make rules related to the use of all resources in support of the United States. The Constitution does not afford the President or Executive any legislative power; nor does the legislative power swing like a pendulum between the congress and President during wartime. Rather, the President -- as many war time presidents have -- sought to assert powers he has not been given the power to assert – and has ignored rules he does not have the power to ignore – and decided which rules do or do not apply – in a manner that is inconsistent with this oath of office and executive. This President has grabbed power, violated the law, and asks that this violation be ratified simply because he defines the situation. But the Constitution is clear: The situation is irrelevant. The President at all times is subject to the rule of law; and the Congress as tall times is the source of the legislative authority. Congress is the one that writes the rules which direct the President. The President does not get to pick and choose which rules he does or does not follow. It is another matter whether issues of enforceability and violations of the law translate into substantive investigations or sanctions. It remains to be seen whether Congress takes action on the signing statements – an intent to ignore the express will of Congress, and move in a manner that is contrary to the intent of Congress. The President does not have the power to rewrite the rules, or ignore the rules which direct him to do and not do things. A president is a national resources. A President is someone used in support of the United States. A President is something that is subject to the rules Congress writes. The President, while asserting he is commander in chief, is someone that falls under the Congressional rule making power. Again, by asserting we are at war – as a justification for action – the President merely dives into the nexus which Congress has the express power to legislate. How the President carries out the directions of Congress is another matter. That is up to the President. But the President does not have the power to ignore Congress, no matter how creative he may be, or selective he is in assenting to the rule of law. The rule of law means one thing: Agreeing to assent to the rules. Anyone, even a President, who chooses to ignore the law, no longer can justify saying he is in support of the United States. He is only in support of himself, especially when he does many things to justify why a wrong is a right. A man who calls violations of the law something that is needed an lawful – only serves himself, not the rule of law. That is the definition of a tyrant. We judge the following: It remains a matter of law and evidence whether the individuals are given upward adjustments to the sentencing because of their consistent refusal to assent to the rule of law. In light of their experience, position of authority, it remains to be seen how many personnel on the Joint Staff are subject to the ultimate penalty: Death. The real issue: How do we find ourselves where we are? The answer is: Article 1, Section 8. The issue isn’t whether the President does or does not have the power. Rather, it is something quite different. Let’s consider what the President would have us believe. That we are at war and he must do what he needs to do. That is fin, but there is one slight problem. Article 1 Section 8 clearly states Congress as the legislative authority to do something, namely issue the FISA. Also, note that the Constitution specifically addresses each of the issues this President says are not covered. In Nixon v. the US, the Supreme Court deferred to the Constitution, not to the President over matters of the text. The issue before us: Why have the Article 1 Section 8 powers of Congress been ignored? That remains to be understood. Many distract attention from Article 1 Section 8 with arguments over the bill of rights, war on terror, and Iraq. These complexities are the fruit of failing to ensure the President follows the rule of law over matters of evidence and official statements to Congress. What is clear is that civil claims need to ask the federal courts rule that the US government action be in violation of Article 1 Section 8. This finding will simply remind the public and legal community that the focus needs to shift from whether the President’s arguments back to the language of the Constitution. The notion of “unitary President” violates Article 1 Section 8. Congress has the power to define the rules, not the President. The President does not have complete control over all things. Rather, he must assent to the rule of law as Congress defines them. Any other action or legal argument is in violation of the US Constitutions. Moreover, the State and Federal Officials must review their oath, as should the legal community. Bluntly, the American Bar Association has let down America. There needs to be a competing association of lawyers which directly competes with the ABA for clients. Also, Judges must be reminded that they can be impeached and removed from office if they fail to assert Article 1 Section 8 controlling Constitutional language, or failing to find unconstitutional many statutes. The President is employed in service of the United States. He must assent to the rules Congress makes. The Constitution applies during peace and war, not simply when the weather is favorable or the President finds it convenient. Singing statements are not enforceable. We judge the proposed Presidential policies are in contravention to the US Constitution. They permit action which Congress has expressively forbidden. This will take time. But make no mistake--the Constitution is alive and well. Article 1 Section 8 is the controlling language. FISA is a rule which Congress has the power to create, and the President – as a public servant – must follow. The Rules of procedures for the House are clear. The Precedents are known. There are rules against providing to Congress false data with the intent to mislead. This is known as materiality and fraud. It remains to be understood what specific information was given to the DC court on the eve of the Iraq invasion. It appears fraud has been committed upon the court. The way forward is simple. All Presidential actions since Jan 2001 need to be considered in light of Article 1 Section 8: This President would like the world to believe that we are war – and that he can write the rules. But Article 1 Section 8 gives this legislative power to congress alone. The problem is not with a single branch, but also with congress and the Judiciary. It remains to be understood why – despite oaths to preserve Article 1 Section 8 – many across all three branches have asserted another fiction: Rather, we need to call this President what he is: A rogue, a tyrant, and willing to ignore the Constitution, and assert he – not the Congress – as the power to write rules and make legislation. The Constitution does not recognize inherent authority or a unitary President. Rather, no President has complete control over his resources. The Congress has the power to write the rules, and mandate that all people – even the President – follow those rules. There is no law that prevents a state from impeaching any federal officer or elected official. Those in the Congress, Judicial Branch, and Executive Branch who have permitted these violations of the law to continue remain subject to impeachment by a percolation by the states. Whether the Congress chooses to assent to the rule of law remains another matter. But nothing before us states that the law enforcement – who has also sworn an oath to uphold Article 1 section 8 – can say they have “something else” better to do. Self-evidently, this war on terror is a sham. NSA monitoring finds nothing at home. Law enforcement and the DoJ cannot say that they “have too much to do” – as the media might embrace or assert. Congress needs to do what it has to do to strike down all laws permitting POTS to violate Article 1 Section 8. If this means Congressional staff attorneys bringing causes of action in Federal Court against the Executive – then that must be done. At this juncture, it is clear that Article 1 section 8 has been ignored, trashed, and explained away. It remains. Article 1 section 8 reminds us that each of the following is within the powers of Congress to legislate: Each of the above acts is related to Article 1 Section 8. Article 1 section 8 is primarily about creating rules which would ensure the abuses by King George would end. Each of these abuses is outlined in the Declaration of Independence. What is needed going forward is a new list of abuses, and a clear comparison with Article 1 section 8. You will find that each of the abuses is related to Article 1 Section 8: The Constitution expressly confers this power to the Congress. The constitution makes no distinction whether this legislative power applies in peace or war. It remains neutral. Again, the abuses of King George occurred during combat operations. His forces were employed in the service of the crown. They had one goal: To harass the colonies, thus the Colonists wanted to be free of unreasonable searches, and ensure the Parliament – now our Congress – had a say in the rules which the King was supposed to follow. This president is no different than King George. King George violated the Magna Carta. We have one option: The Constitution. The Constitution already covers all the abuses related to AlQueda, warrantless spying, and the unlawful war. The problem is this President has been allowed to move. What is needed is a state level effort to bring charges against those judges who fail to assert Article 1 Section 8 over this President – for failing to preserve the Constitution. Rendition is not lawful, and all CIA and NSA personnel who are involved, know, and continue to support this unlawful movement of personnel – you remain subject to 42 USC 1983 claims, and the Nuremburg War Crimes findings. Congress has the power to define how combat operations are waged. This President has waged unlawful war, has used unlawful weapons, and fraudulently communicated to Congress information congress relied on. Congress did not give the President the power to lie, nor wage unlawful war. There is no inherent authority or unitary President. The President does not have the power to write or ignore rules. Rather, it is the job of the states to act where Congress and the Courts refuse to compel this tyrant to the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 is the clear foundation for FISA. The Constitution is clear. It expressly gives the Congress all legislative power. This President ignores Article 1 section 8. He has failed to preserve the constitution, has violated this oath of office, and has committed a high crime: Violated the Constitution. It is the job of the 50 state legislators to review these matters, and have a spirited debate: What is to be done, how will the issue be resolved, and in what matter will the state proclamation be given to the House of Representatives. The world notices. America asserts the rule of law. Each public servant asserts an oath to the Constitution. Each official is given the chance to carry with them a copy of the document they swear an oath to preserve. Article 1 section 8 is very clear. It does not matter than the American Bar Association does not choose to provide information or take action. Your duty as an elected official is to ensure your oath of office is fulfilled. Those who fail to preserve the Constitution are committing high crimes. You are outnumbered. There are almost 300 million Americans. They have one Constitution. Your oath self-evidently means nothing. Article 1 Section 5 gives the Congress the power to make all chamber rules – including filibuster as recognized in Nixon v. US – but Article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to enforce the House rules with necessary legislation. America knows about the House Rules and they know about the State Proclamation. You were warned what a leader would do when they banged the drums of war: Article 1 Section 8 remains. The President remains in service of the United States. Article 1 Section 8 gives the congress the power to make rules governing the President. The Constitution is neutral on the issue of war. The Constitution’s Article 1 Section 8 applies during peace, war, or any other situation. King George committed abuses. Our Constitution eliminates those who engage in similar abuses. DoJ has a problem with its contracting and IT department. SAIC self evidently has failed to provide what is needed. It remains to be understood why DoJ personnel – despite being employed in service of the US – appear to have failed to meet a minimal level of professionalism and expertise. Congress has the power through Article 1 Section 8 to make rules about the promotion, hiring, and other matters related to the specific rules governing people working for the US. Article 1 Section 8 is clear. It remains to be understood how many rule-making powers the Congress has unlawfully granted to the President. It will take time to assess to what extent the Congressional practice has endorsed executive actions and rule making which defies the Constitution. The President does not have the power to make rules about Pirates – this is Congress role The President has exceeded the power of Article 1 section 8 and made rules about torture, movement of personnel, rendition, use of CIA and NSA resources, and unlawful war. This is the power of Congress. DoJ has a problem. There is no Constitutional crisis. There is a crisis with Article 1 Section 8. The President is the one with the problem. His legal counsel – however defective they might be – swore an oath to preserve Article 1 Section 8. It remains to be seen whether Congress shall make another rule – directing that there be a set of rules outlining a competing bar association to directly compete with the ABA. Self-evidently, the ABA has failed to assert Article 1 Section 8. The Constitution permits Congress to make rules which will regulate those who are employed in the service of the US: Namely, the White House counsel and DoJ staff attorneys. Clearly, Article 1 Section 8 has drifted from their focus. They need to be refocused on Constitutional law. State and federal legislators need to be retaught the Constitution, and then required by an act of Congress to certify in writing under penalty of perjury that they have read and understood the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 8; and that they have retaken their oath of office. Then it becomes a matter of law and evidence to what extent those who have asserted this in writing have done so with the intent to evade their oath. Before us, we have ample evidence many have ignored Article 1 Section 8. The Constitution is clear. The confusion lies with the RNC, PNAC, and the elected officials who assent to this tyranny, and block efforts by the state legislators to issue impeachment proclamations. This is known to the media and now the public. Article 1 section 8 is not a mystery, nor does it create for public officials some sort of defense to stupidity. Your oath and failure to honor your oath is what hangs in the balance. Here’s what’s really at stake: Article 2, Section 4: "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." All of you – both within the RNC and DNC – at the state and local level – are subject to impeachment if you fail to assert Article 1 Section 8. You are going to lose. End Scrolling Box 2 |
This sad chapter in American history is coming to a close.
Keep the faith. There is more information on the way -- GCHQ remains ready, standing by, and will release more information if the House and DNC refuse to meet the 01 March 2006 deadline.
That date is firm.
Choose wisely.
There is nothing the RNC can do to stop this. They are in a no-win situation--at all levels: Federal, State, and your local community.
This scrolling box is a list of information your state delegation will want to include in your discussion packages for the State Proclamation.
The purpose of this list is to give you, bloggers, and notion of what your leadership will want to review. Your job is to know there is a plan in place, that it is lawful, and it shows the RNC has no legal defense.
Again, heed Attorney Fitzgerald's advice: Remain calm. The Grand Jury continues their work. Indictments are still being worked. Your job is to continue the pressure on the House leadership to bring this to a vote; and at the same time move with all due speed efforts in your state to bring this to a vote.
All you have to do is contact your local media, local officials in your state who you have elected, and remind them that the RNC is in a no-win situation; the House vote will show the public where the RNC stands on the rule of law.
Again, read the above two scrolling boxes for details on why this 01 Mar 2006 deadline will compel the RNC to vote either up or down; and publicly commit one way or another -- with enough time for the world to see, digest, and carefully review the RNC's responses -- and give you time to incorporate the RNC approaches when discussing who you want to elect in your states.
Good luck. Here is the scrolling box outlining some of the things to have in the information packages for your state delegations when they discuss the state proclamation.
State Oath of Office FISA Article 1 Section 8 Copy of House rules related to State Proclamation Copy of 2469 Precedent: In re Florida Proclamation |
Again, keep in mind, it is only going to get worse for the RNC. There is nothing they can do. They are in a no-win situation. They have committed to a plan that has been trashed; and they have been surprised by this State Proclamation option.
They have wished for this.
Update: 18 Jan 2006 Added More At end, after kw = [Where do we go from here . . .]
ConyersBlog: Reed, Please pass along . . .Constant is "Waving to Reed, Alma, and Rusty." Haven't forgotten you.
Well, dear readers. You are in for a treat -- We've figured out a way to impeach the President -- without going through the House Judiciary Committee.
What?!?! Yes, it's all laid out -- I need you to click this link -- it is the Haloscan Feed for Raw story.
Please read the entire Raw Story Comment-line at that link -- the entire Haloscan comment feed means all the links after the link above: You'll see the various inputs and ideas and comments on how this would work.
You'll notice a familiar speaker there.
I encourage you to keep an open mind, and read through all the comments after/and including this link.
In short, although the RNC controls the House, they do not control the agenda. We do. Here's how it works.
- A single member of the House can formally bring charges -- an investigation has to start; also
- There are two other ways: A single state can do it -- like Virginia -- or a Territory -- like Puerto Rico.
Keep in mind that there are people who can draft the articles of impeachment; they do not have to be perfect, and the rules permit the Senate to send them back to the House for a revision.
All that needs to happen is a single member, State, or Territory to bring the charges to the House floor.
Here's what's needed
We need someone -- namely you -- to discuss this issue at the Conyers, Atrios, America Blog, After Downing Street and Raw Story, Senator Reid, Representative Slaughter, and WNYC.
Results: We judge there is sufficient DNC leverage to mandate the House vote without referring this to the House Judiicary Committee; if no actdion is taken by 1 Mar 2006 a State proclomation shall issue within three months, mandating a floor vote under the existing House rules.
Action: Vote here: Which state should issue the proclomation: Vermont – Louisiana -- Hawaii – California – Massachusetts -- Rhode Island -- North Mariana Islands -- Puerto Rico – Colorado – Maine -- Alaska -- Other.
Sample resolution: A member of Congress will need to appear in the House, charge the President using the state resolution.
A. States
VT and RI appear to be the most fertle ground. Maine is controlled by Democrats.
Considering next the issue of a veto, as alternatives, DNC majorities in RI, VT, HI and MA appear sufficient to override a possible RNC veto.
Regardless the outcome, the public will see: Do the States -- after the Judiciary Hearings -- put their party before their oaths. It seems possible, despite the numbres asgainst the RNC, that the RNC may choose to refuse to take action, putting local seats in the State at risk for failing to assert their oaths before party.
B. Active discussions
We can confirm intercepts of communications within the state offices of TN on this matter. The individuals discussing this matter in TN have access to incredible wealth and power.
Missouri Attorney General engaged in discussions; See: "Comment #119: feline said on 1/23/06 @ 1:33pm ET... "
C. RNC's best solution: RNC member walks on floor and makes charge
It remins to be seen whether the RNC -- seeing the inevitable state action -- decides to take action and save their majorities.
Here are some details related to Texas charges against Reagan -- Bob Fertik posted at After Downing Street: A very nice connection to Texas and the previous resolutions for impeachment. People are seeing new posibilites in the existing language, rules and recent RNC precedents. Nice summary, Bob. Very well done. Thank you for your attention, and the Grand Jury reference.
D. Substantial support for this effort:
Kos: Arbortender -- Thanks for the link and time you have put into this issue. Your work in the recent election has prepare you well for this challenge. Thank you for your support.
White Blitz and jayatRI point out the flawed White House calculus on the Judiciary Committee -- the States can act.
Thread: {Story 1; Story 1 [Story only]}; {Story 2; Story 2 [Story only]}
Reed [ See -- Comment #142: Reed31463 said on 1/23/06 @ 9:45pm ET... ]: Well done, Reed. Keep up your work--I expect you to continue with your focus. Your inputs are valued.
ConyersBlog: Comment #107: GreyHawk121 said on 1/23/06 @ 1:43am ET; Thanks Grey Hawk.
Thanks Reed -- Comment 45, good catches on the spellings.
Smirking Chimp -- Thanks Caged, Post [ 2006-01-18 17:58 ].
Dark Christian: Exploring the issues.
Talk2Action: The House rules -- permitting state resolutions calling for impeachment without Committee involvement -- have been tested with the Florida State resolution against a Federal Judge. There is extended discussion below, with the cited House Precedent.
Here is the link you'll need: It's to the House Rules, and discusses the options.
A. Details are here -- make sure you read all the comments in the entire thread -- there are multiple inputs, thoughts on this.
B. Also link to this this thread -- look at page 3 of 13:
Recommend: Use these key quotes:
A. Charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member
B. Charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory
Recommend: Use this cut and paste from the document [emphasis added]:
In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941Â 42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 49; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 248; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).
Questions
A. What is the authority? Article 1 Section 5 permits the House to establish the rules.
B. What is the Jefferson Manual? These were rules the House adopted in 1837, recognizing the Jefferson Manual so long as they do not conflict with the House. The following comment is noteworthy:
[The Jefferson Manual] govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of the HouseRef
C. What is the practice in the House? House practice recognize State resolutions from any of the 50 states, and citizen petitions [ See "Initiation of charges" at the link].
Note, the rule related to a petition specifically mentions the committee; one could argue that had the rules required a committee referral in all matters, the rules would have said so; given there is no specific stated mention of a committee referral in re State Resolution, one cannot create a requirement.
Quoting from the House Practices [emphasis added]:
In most cases, impeachment proceedings in the House have been initiated either by introducing a resolution of impeachment through the hopper or by offering a resolution of impeachment on the floor as a question of the privileges of the House. Manual Sec. 603; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 5. Other methods of setting an impeachment in motion in the House include: Charges initiated by a petition from one or more citizens and referred to committee. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2364, 2491, 2494. Charges transmitted in a message from the President. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2294, 2319; 6 Cannon Sec. 498. Charges transmitted from the legislature of a State. 3 Hinds Sec. 2469. Charges arising from a grand jury investigation. 3 Hinds Sec. 2488. Charges arising from an independent counsel investigation under section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code. Manual Sec. 603. Source: House Practices. |
------------
Had the House intended for that requirement to exist the House would have included that requirement. The law does not create requirements where there is no requirement; nor does the law prohibit something that which is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere but not in the instant case.
D. What is required? The procedures are not mandatory, but simply say what "may" happen. Thus, we judge the Jefferson Manual is not in conflict and the rules permit a resolution from a state or citizen petition.
E. Precedents -- Swayne, Hinds Vol III, Section 2469:
Step 1: Select [Hinds' Precedent, Vol III ] {This is Roman Numeral Volume 3}
Step 2: Type in "2469" at the Submit box.
Here is a copy of the GPO data, showing that the State of Florida passed a resolution in re Judge Swayne, and this was voted on by the US House of Representatives before the committee did an investigation; and the order for an investigation followed the vote on the House Floor.
Note: Emphasis Added
Note: The House declined to have the committee investigate before taking a vote and ordering an investigation.
[Hinds Precedents -- Volume III]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:hinds_lxxviii.wais]
Chapter LXXVIII.
THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF CHARLES SWAYNE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Charges by a State legislature. Section 2469.
2. Investigation by House committee. Sections 2470, 2471,
3. Impeachment at the bar of the Senate and preparation of
articles. Sections 2472-2474.
4. Appointment of managers and exhibition of articles.
Sections 2475, 2476.
5. Organization of Senate for trial. Section 2477.
6. Process issued. Section 2478.
7. Return on summons and appearance of respondent. Section
2479.
8. Respondent's answer. Sections 2480, 2481.
9. Replication of the House. Section 2482.
10. Presentation of testimony. Section 2483.
11. Final arguments. Section 2484.
12. Decision of the Senate. Section 2485.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As a courtesy for the readers of this blog, the following content has been reformatted for reading purposes; a copy of the original cut and paste is provided at the end of this scrolling box for reference; the link above will allow you to see the original for your own study and consideration.
----------- Reformatted ---------------------------------------
2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the northern district of Florida.
A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial.
Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to justify the House in ordering an investigation.
The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne considered by a committee before ordering an investigation.
Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the charges against Judge Swayne.
On December 10, 1903,\1\ Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by this House is a question of privilege. I have made a joint resolution adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption. In pursuance of this joint resolution of the legislature of the State which I have the honor in part to represent, I impeach Charles Swayne, judge of the northern district of the State of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and the resolution which I have prepared in
accordance with former proceedings of this House in like cases:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 37-1 Record, pp. 95, 103.Sec. 2469
``Whereas the following joint resolution was adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida:
``Senate joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the United States court for the northern district of Florida.
``Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Florida:
``Whereas Charles Swayne, United States district judge of the northern district of Florida, has so conducted himself and his court as to cause the people of the State to doubt his integrity and to believe that his official actions as judge are susceptible to corrupt influences and have been so corruptly influenced;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is guilty of a violation of section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the United States in that he does not reside in the district for which he was appointed and of which he is judge, but resides out of the State of Florida and in the State of Delaware or State of Pennsylvania, in open and defiant violation of said statute, and has not resided in the northern district of Florida, for which he was appointed, in ten years, and is constantly absent from said district, only making temporary visits for a pretense of discharging his official duties;
``Whereas the reputation of Charles Swayne as a corrupt judge is very injurious to the interests of the entire State of Florida, and his constant absence from his supposed district causes great sacrifice of their rights and annoyance and expense to litigants in his court;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is not only a corrupt judge, but that he is ignorant and incompetent, and that his judicial opinions do not command the respect or confidence of the people;
``Whereas the administration of the United States bankruptcy act in the court of said Charles Swayne and by his appointed referee has resulted in every instance in the waste of the assets of the alleged bankrupt by being absorbed in unnecessary costs, expenses, and allowances, to the great wrong and injury of creditors and others, until such administration is, in effect, legalized robbery and a stench in the nostrils of all good people:
``Be it resolved by the house of representatives of the State of Florida (the senate concurring), That our Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the proceedings of the United States circuit and districts court for the northern district of Florida by Charles Swayne as United States judge for the northern district of Florida, and of his acts and doings as such judge, to the end that he may be impeached and removed from such office.
``Be it resolved further, That the secretary of state of the State of Florida be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States, under the great seal of the State of Florida, a copy of this resolution and its
unanimous adoption by the legislature of the State of Florida.
``STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
``UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Florida, ss:
``I, H. Clay Crawford, secretary of state of the State of Florida, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of senate joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the United States court for the northern district of Florida, passed by the legislature of Florida, session of 1903, and on file in this office.
``Given under my hand and the great seal of the State of Florida at Tallahassee, the capital, this the 7th day of September, A. D. 1903. [l. s.]
`` `H. Clay Crawford, Secretary of State.
``Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and report whether the action of this House is requisite concerning the official misconduct of Charles Swayne, judge of the United States district court for the northern district of Florida, and say whether said judge has held terms of his court as required by law;
whether he has continuously and persistently absented himself from the said State, and whether his acts and omissions in his office of judge have been such as in any degree to deprive the people of that district of the benefits of the court therein to amount to a denial of justice; whether the said judge has been guilty of corrupt conduct in office, and whether his administration of his office has resulted in injury and wrong to litigants of his court.
``And in reference to this investigation the said committee is hereby authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, administer oaths, take testimony, and to employ a clerk and stenographer, if necessary, to send a subcommittee whenever and wherever it may be necessary to take testimony for the use of said committee. And the said subcommittee while so employed shall have the same powers in respect to obtaining testimony as are herein given to said Committee on the Judiciary, with a sergeant-at-arms, by himself or deputy, who shall serve the processes of said committee and subcommittee and execute its orders, and shall attend the sittings of the same as ordered and directed thereby. And that the expense of such investigation shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.''
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, raised the question that the specifications made by the Member from Florida were not sufficiently specific; and after debate Mr. Lamar said:
I charge this judge, first, with continued, persistent, and, if you please, pernicious absenteeism from his district; second, with corrupt official conduct, based upon several matters. * * * Third, I charge Judge Swayne with maladministration of judicial matters in his court, so much so as to embarrass bankrupts and annihilate the assets of litigants and others appearing within his jurisdiction
Renewed objection being made that charges should be more definite and better substantiated in order to initiate proceedings so important, Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
After debate the motion of Mr. Lacey was disagreed to, ayes 53, noes 129.
The resolution was then agreed to without division.
2470. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The resolution impeaching Judge Swayne was reported from a divided
committee.
The committee investigating Judge Swayne took testimony in the Judge's district as well as in Washington.
In the investigation of the conduct of Judge Swayne the accused was present in person with counsel and argued his own case.
In investigating the conduct of Judge Swayne both complainants and accused were permitted to introduce sworn testimony.
On March 25, 1904, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on the Judiciary, presented the report \1\ of that committee.
The report says:
Testimony was taken in Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville, Fla., and in the city of Washington upon several days. At all the hearings the Hon. Charles Swayne was present himself and by counsel, except at the last hearings in Washington, when he appeared in propria persona and argued his case before the subcommittee. All the witnesses asked for by the complainants and the respondent were sworn. Their evidence was reduced to writing and is presented with this report. Specifications of the particular matters covered by the general charges were furnished the committee by the complainants. They were as
follows:
Specification 1.--That the said Charles Swayne, judge of the United States court in and for the northern district of Florida, for ten years, while he has been such judge, was a nonresident of the State of Florida, and resided in the State of Delaware. That he never pretended to reside in Florida until May, 1903. That during said time of his nonresidence, by such nonresidence, he has caused great inconvenience, annoyance, injury, and expense to litigants in his court, not so much by failure to hold terms of court as by failing to be in reach for the disposition of admiralty and chancery matters and other matters arising
between terms of court needing disposition.
Specification 2.--That said Charles Swayne, as such judge, appointed one B. C. Tunison as United States commissioner; that it was charged that it was an improper appointment, and that testimony was offered to such effect before said appointment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Report No. 1905.
----------- Original Copy and Paste for your reference -------
2469. The impeachment and trial of Charles Swayne, judge of the
northern district of Florida.
A Member, rising in his place, impeached Judge Swayne both on his own
responsibility and on the strength of a legislative memorial.
Discussion as to the degree of definiteness of charges required to
justify the House in ordering an investigation.
The House declined to have the impeachment of Judge Swayne considered
by a committee before ordering an investigation.
Form of resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to examine the
charges against Judge Swayne.
On December 10, 1903,\1\ Mr. William B. Lamar, of Florida, claiming
the floor for a question of privilege, said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the impeachment of a civil officer by
this House is a question of privilege. I have made a joint resolution
adopted by the legislature of the State of Florida a part of the
resolution which I desire to submit to this House for its adoption. In
pursuance of this joint resolution of the legislature of the State
which I have the honor in part to represent, I impeach Charles Swayne,
judge of the northern district of the State of Florida, of high crimes
and misdemeanors; and the resolution which I have prepared in
accordance with former proceedings of this House in like cases:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 37-1 Record,
pp. 95, 103.
Sec. 2469
``Whereas the following joint resolution was adopted by the
legislature of the State of Florida:
``Senate joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the
United States court for the northern district of Florida.
``Be it resolved by the legislature of the State of Florida:
``Whereas Charles Swayne, United States district judge of the
northern district of Florida, has so conducted himself and his court as
to cause the people of the State to doubt his integrity and to believe
that his official actions as judge are susceptible to corrupt
influences and have been so corruptly influenced;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is guilty of a
violation of section 551 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
in that he does not reside in the district for which he was appointed
and of which he is judge, but resides out of the State of Florida and
in the State of Delaware or State of Pennsylvania, in open and defiant
violation of said statute, and has not resided in the northern district
of Florida, for which he was appointed, in ten years, and is constantly
absent from said district, only making temporary visits for a pretense
of discharging his official duties;
``Whereas the reputation of Charles Swayne as a corrupt judge is very
injurious to the interests of the entire State of Florida, and his
constant absence from his supposed district causes great sacrifice of
their rights and annoyance and expense to litigants in his court;
``Whereas it also appears that the said Charles Swayne is not only a
corrupt judge, but that he is ignorant and incompetent, and that his
judicial opinions do not command the respect or confidence of the
people;
``Whereas the administration of the United States bankruptcy act in
the court of said Charles Swayne and by his appointed referee has
resulted in every instance in the waste of the assets of the alleged
bankrupt by being absorbed in unnecessary costs, expenses, and
allowances, to the great wrong and injury of creditors and others,
until such administration is, in effect, legalized robbery and a stench
in the nostrils of all good people:
``Be it resolved by the house of representatives of the State of
Florida (the senate concurring), That our Senators and Representatives
in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to
cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper
proceedings for the investigation of the proceedings of the United
States circuit and districts court for the northern district of Florida
by Charles Swayne as United States judge for the northern district of
Florida, and of his acts and doings as such judge, to the end that he
may be impeached and removed from such office.
``Be it resolved further, That the secretary of state of the State of
Florida be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and
Representative in the Congress of the United States, under the great
seal of the State of Florida, a copy of this resolution and its
unanimous adoption by the legislature of the State of Florida.
``STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
``UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Florida, ss:
``I, H. Clay Crawford, secretary of state of the State of Florida,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of senate
joint resolution in reference to Charles Swayne, judge of the United
States court for the northern district of Florida, passed by the
legislature of Florida, session of 1903, and on file in this office.
``Given under my hand and the great seal of the State of Florida at
Tallahassee, the capital, this the 7th day of September, A. D. 1903.
[l. s.]
`` `H. Clay Crawford, Secretary of State.
``Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to
inquire and report whether the action of this House is requisite
concerning the official misconduct of Charles Swayne, judge of the
United States district court for the northern district of Florida, and
say whether said judge has held terms of his court as required by law;
whether he has continuously and persistently absented himself from the
said State, and whether his acts and omissions in his office of judge
have been such as in any degree to deprive the people of that district
of the benefits of the court therein to amount to a denial of justice;
whether the said judge has been guilty of corrupt conduct in office,
and whether his administration of his office has resulted in injury and
wrong to litigants of his court.
Sec. 2470
``And in reference to this investigation the said committee is hereby
authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, administer
oaths, take testimony, and to employ a clerk and stenographer, if
necessary, to send a subcommittee whenever and wherever it may be
necessary to take testimony for the use of said committee. And the said
subcommittee while so employed shall have the same powers in respect to
obtaining testimony as are herein given to said Committee on the
Judiciary, with a sergeant-at-arms, by himself or deputy, who shall
serve the processes of said committee and subcommittee and execute its
orders, and shall attend the sittings of the same as ordered and
directed thereby. And that the expense of such investigation shall be
paid out of the contingent fund of the House.''
Mr. Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, raised the question that the
specifications made by the Member from Florida were not sufficiently
specific; and after debate Mr. Lamar said:
I charge this judge, first, with continued, persistent, and, if you
please, pernicious absenteeism from his district; second, with corrupt
official conduct, based upon several matters. * * * Third, I charge
Judge Swayne with maladministration of judicial matters in his court,
so much so as to embarrass bankrupts and annihilate the assets of
litigants and others appearing within his jurisdiction
Renewed objection being made that charges should be more definite and
better substantiated in order to initiate proceedings so important, Mr.
John F. Lacey, of Iowa, moved that the resolution be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
After debate the motion of Mr. Lacey was disagreed to, ayes 53, noes
129.
The resolution was then agreed to without division.
2470. The Swayne impeachment continued.
The resolution impeaching Judge Swayne was reported from a divided
committee.
The committee investigating Judge Swayne took testimony in the
Judge's district as well as in Washington.
In the investigation of the conduct of Judge Swayne the accused was
present in person with counsel and argued his own case.
In investigating the conduct of Judge Swayne both complainants and
accused were permitted to introduce sworn testimony.
On March 25, 1904, Mr. Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania, from the
Committee on the Judiciary, presented the report \1\ of that committee.
The report says:
Testimony was taken in Pensacola, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville,
Fla., and in the city of Washington upon several days. At all the
hearings the Hon. Charles Swayne was present himself and by counsel,
except at the last hearings in Washington, when he appeared in propria
persona and argued his case before the subcommittee. All the witnesses
asked for by the complainants and the respondent were sworn. Their
evidence was reduced to writing and is presented with this report.
Specifications of the particular matters covered by the general
charges were furnished the committee by the complainants. They were as
follows:
Specification 1.--That the said Charles Swayne, judge of the United
States court in and for the northern district of Florida, for ten
years, while he has been such judge, was a nonresident of the State of
Florida, and resided in the State of Delaware. That he never pretended
to reside in Florida until May, 1903. That during said time of his
nonresidence, by such nonresidence, he has caused great inconvenience,
annoyance, injury, and expense to litigants in his court, not so much
by failure to hold terms of court as by failing to be in reach for the
disposition of admiralty and chancery matters and other matters arising
between terms of court needing disposition.
Specification 2.--That said Charles Swayne, as such judge, appointed
one B. C. Tunison as United States commissioner; that it was charged
that it was an improper appointment, and that testimony was offered to
such effect before said appointment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Report No. 1905.
House Precedents: Enjoy.
506 U.S. 224: Supreme Court defers -- rules are up to the political process; the courts have no say. ["The deference that is owed can be found in the Constitution itself"]
State resolutions were used to pass Amendments, their use is not prohibited the Constitution. [Eleventh Amendment in 1794].
F. Authorities
Article 1, Section 5 permits the House to create rules.
X Amendment states all powers not delegated to the Government, are reserved to the People. The House rules permit, and do not prohibit, State Resolutions.
Summary
What's needed is some attention to this issue.
Namely, the House Judiciary committee is not the only way to go.
Rather, the States and Territories have a role and can start the process.
Also, a single House member can make the charges -- and call for an investigation. The RNC will likely block this -- but they will be on the record for having failed to act.
Good luck.
You have my permission to link to this site, copy the above contents without attribution, or use my name if you choose to do so.
You may refer to me as, "Constant".
Next steps:
1. Call attention to the Issue: Senate needs to Filibuster Alito, shut down all business until one of the States, Territories, or members makes charge in the House.
2. Let the RNC waste their time: Lott will likely initiate an action to find the Filibuster unconstitutional. That is fine -- the argument is without merit -- Constitution allows each house to make their own rules--nothing in the Constitution says the Senate cannot make a rule against Filibuster. [If they eliminate the Filibuster, that is fine -- will prevent them from filibustering when the charges are brought for trial. We can then have the States vote on making an Amendment permitting Filibuster as a Constitutional right and rule -- this is called the Hydrogen Option.]
3. A diversion: The House needs to censure/expel all members who are linked to Ambramoff.
4. Rude wakeup: Once the State-Territory-Member brings charges, the RNC will likely block an investigation -- but this is irrelevant, as the House Rules says that there must be a vote on the charges. Nothing the RNC can do will change the rules -- recall the problem they had with Delay and the call to change the rules.
5. Reality check: The Articles of Impeachment, as drafted, can be returned to the House from the Senate for revisions.
6. Momentum: After Fitzgerald appears with an indictment against Bush over Plame, or the State-Territory-Member files the charges, the House will see that the momentum is against the President -- and the evidence is merely mounting. It will only be a matter of time before the charges fall into the Senate.
7. Momentum with the Senator's Oath of office, and Senate Judiciary: The problem is going to be the Senate: However, they do have an oath of office to protect the Constitution, not the President. They've all taken oaths of office. It's time to review whether their failure to review the evidence -- with a filibuster -- would amount to a violation of their oath of office.
. . . if they fail to act, the evidence will mount.
GCHQ is standing ready to open the Echelon files -- conversations and transcripts of the conspiracy over Plame/the war crimes in Iraq and planned in Iran. The Americans cannot destroy the evidence that is about to be leaked -- the files are still intact.
GCHQ has transcripts of specific named individuals in DoJ and NSA who are involved in the cover-up over the NSA evidence -- the discussions, and their "off wire" communications.
There also exist backup copies of the NSA files that have been destroyed -- these files show the existing cover-up and the original files collected, but which have not been completely destroyed as reported. These files remain intact.
Those within the White House, DoJ, and NSA that believe you are under physical threat -- not to worry. You are only answerable to the rule of law.
Your problem is that if you run, we know how to intercept your in-flight communications, and you will tracked. If you run, it will only get worse.
We have the evidence, and nothing you can do can destroy it.
Choose wisely. This will end -- either with or without your cooperation.
Again, you are not in physical jeopardy -- you are only subject to the rule of law. The longer this lasts, the more time we have to collect more evidence -- and it will surface.
The game is almost over. Don't make this more difficult than you need to. We have an infinite amount of time to do this -- your time is finite.
You are outnumbered.
There is nothing you can do to stop this.
There is detailed information explaining why the Senate Phase II investigation is stalled, and what was said during the classified discussions in the Senate and the Senate Intelligence Committee Chamber. These conversations have been intercepted by GCHQ. Transcripts are available.
The Senators made comments with the incorrect belief that the public would not find out. They made an error.
There are off line communications which the Senate Democrats in the Senate Intelligence Committee have not been given or aware. GCHQ is standing by to disclose this information.
Where do we go from here . . .
Update: 18 Jan 2006
Going forward, your primary focus should be on the known violations of the law – namely the warrantless surveillance in violation of the FISA Act.
Keep this in front of you as you listen to the discussions. You can fully expect there to be well intentioned discussions about interesting constitutional philosophy, and whether the President does or does not have the authority to do something. The list is endless.
The key is to focus on the FISA violations. The States will need to have a clear focus on the violations when they debate.
Your job is to keep the issue focused on the violations and ensure your state level officials keep the legal issues in mind.
There will be many distractions. Your primary focus should be to organize these other views and arguments – keeping in mind they are valid concerns and solutions are needed – while at the same time keeping your friends and State level officials on focus.
The RNC has already shown its colors. Bluntly, in preparation all you need to do is keep in mind the law.
The RNC is about one thing: Maintaining their access to power to continue their agenda. They have demonstrated what they are capable of. The list of lawless violations in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Iraq are endless. The campaign finance issues are long. Indeed, the list is endless.
Your job is to accept what they are capable of doing – using the law as a guidebook – what to violate, and how to dissuade you from taking action.
As you progress, your primary goal should be at all times to stay within the law and be safe. Remember, you are not alone.
Others are also working in concert. There are things occurring behind the doors. You will later learn of these things. You need not be concerned.
Your primary goal should be to remain focused on the FISA violations – and ensuring that you are safe, healthy, well rested, and mentally alert.
There will be a time when you will be called upon to sacrifice your time and energy. Be prepared. Be ready. But know your loss of sleep is only temporary.
When you rest, put aside your concerns. Know that others are working with you. This will soon end.
The RNC already knows of the planning. Their goal is to distract your attention from FISA, and delay decisions.
Know their goal is to defer, delay, and deny. They will do this at meetings. Know this in advance and plan accordingly.
The DNC leadership needs to commit to deadlines. Namely, strategy sessions with plans need to be formulated. Priorities need to be set. And dates established.
Think in broad terms of what is happening. DC has proven itself to be incapable of exerting oversight. But the failures of DC should not be a reason to scorn them.
Rather, the planning must think in broader terms. The state and national governments will have to be harmonized.
But the RNC has a problem. Not so many days ago, they could rely on intimidation at a single forum: Congress.
Now, in light of the NSA domestic spying, the problem has multiplied. No longer is the focus of the RNC just on DC. Now, the RNC must content with the threat at all 50 states. Each of the states is now a new source of irritation. Each of the State Legislatures is a source of an impeachment.
This means one thing for the RNC. They have already discussed the methods to retaliate against the State Level officials. Contracts, agreements and other arrangement have been made to dissuade action.
Yet, there is one small problem. It is the law. And the State level officials oaths of office. Each time the RNC hopes to dissuade the State officials from taking action on impeachment – means they are doing something to dissuade a public official from doing what they ought to do.
Bluntly, the RNC is exploring ways of lawfully bribing state officials to not act on the impeachment issues. This is already known to law enforcement. Integrity testing and certified fraud examiners are well aware of the risks.
Your job is simple: To continue focusing on the FISA violations, and encourage your state level officials to do the same.
You are not alone. There are 49 other states also wrestling with this issue.
The RNC job is difficult. They are well organized. But they are also clumsy. Their greatest weakness is their loyalty to their agenda, without regard to adjusting.
The are well organized. They are also reluctant to independently think, and not quick to recognize when they are in a losing situation.
Their problem is simple. They are going to lose, and they have not accepted this.
Some might be alarmed thinking they will do anything – indeed, they will. But you also have a large advantage: We outnumber them, and the Constitution is on our side.
The longer this continues, the more evidence there will be of the wrong doing.
But remember the primary legal issue: It is the violation of the FISA using warrantless searches. All other RNC actions are dedicated to doing one thing: Distracting attention from this focus, dissuading your action, and divert attention to other issues.
Be prepared. Do not trouble yourself with combating their every word. Rather, take the simple approach – patiently record what they are saying, ask them questions, and make sure you understand exactly what they are saying. Your job is to make sure that you understand.
You may not agree. But that is not the point. The point it to listen. Then use their words against them.
Remember, the crime has already been committed. All words at this point are excuses. Nothing more.
Your job is to link what they say – their excuses – to the failure to follow the law. They will not listen to you. They are impatient. They are not used to you knowing they are wrong.
Be prepared for what will happen. The RNC is used to compliance, not questions. At the moment that they believe they have won you over, but you remind them of the FISA violations – they will become unsettled. They will attempt to change the subject back to you.
Be prepared for them to yell. To scream. To degrade you. This is to be expected. Remember, as they yell at you = smile, knowing they are undisciplined. Their minds are not focused.
Your mind is focused on what is most important: The FISA violations. That is all you need to know.
Iran is a distraction. NSA and CIA have no evidence of a weapons program. If they did, the IAEA would have been directed to these locations.
Think of Iran as part of the RNC agenda. It is part of their effort to distract attention from the FISA violations.
The RNC is doing the same with Iran as they did with Iraq. Their goal is to paint scary pictures – to make the world fearful. Their words are illusions.
If the Iranians were doing something wrong, the NSA and CIA would have this specific information. They have nothing. The laptop with the nuclear plans -- these plans were fabricated, just like the Niger Yellow Cake.
There are more ruses on the way. False witnesses are being trained. People are writing things on paper for others to read. These are not based on anything.
Remember one thing with Iran: If it is a real problem, why did we not invade Iran before Iraq? The answer is simple. Iran and Iraq are illusions. PNAC is looking for an excuse. The agenda is old. It was written before 2000. Libby has been indicted. There is no WMD to be found in Iraq. You hear nothing but excuses.
But this is irrelevant. The issue is the FISA violations. Iran is a distraction.
The RNC have one goal with Iran: To get you to buy into non-sense. This will wear you down. Their non-sense will affect your thinking. The goal of the RNC is to drive action and focus without planning or thought. This is at the core of discipline. It is also based on non-sense.
Iran is simple: It is being fueled as an issue for one purpose. The RNC hopes to distract your attention from the FISA violations. Yes, there are many other ruses, abuses, and non-sense. But it is part of the same thing.
Think about the State level impeachments. The RNC’s problem is simple. It is as if they have a mid-term election, but 10 months early. Their timing is off.
The RNC goal is simple. They hope to disrupt all efforts to remain focused on the FISA violations.
The DNC leadership is well aware of this. They have already established a plan. The next step is to integrate this DNC plan for 2006 with the state-level efforts to discuss the FISA act.
Also unfolding is the Senate Judiciary inquiry. The DNC planning will consider how to integrate these findings into the state-level discussion at the local level.
The RNC has a simple goal. To disrupt the DNC planning, discredit the DNC progress to date, and imply the DNC efforts are not needed.
Remember the focus: The FISA violations.
The legal community is already discussing the contract implications. The RNC is exploring their options. They have considered economic retaliation against those state officials which support this effort. This planning is known.
The DNC planning will have to assess a few factors. The DNC will have to decide which of the 50 states they will want to focus their time, resources, and money. This presents a problem for the RNC. The RNC is not used to this. The trap the RNC is falling into is their belief in their agenda, discipline and organization. They are rigid, but the situation is much different.
The DNC has the advantage. They are focused on the FISA violations.
There are 50 states. Each state is just as capable of drafting and passing articles of impeachment against the President.
The state and national efforts will have to be coordinated. The states will have to ensure that their articles are something that will work and be understood at the federal level – something that the House will consider. This is not difficult. It will take time, but it can be done.
Within a few days, there will be some decisions. Not all 50 states will be equally positioned to discuss and draft articles of impeachment. This is to be expected.
Some of the states will have a better chance than others. The leadership will make decisions on which states will have the primary focus. The goal of the RNC is to forecast which states the DNC believes it has the greatest chance of winning – and the RNC will do all it can to disrupt these efforts.
Your job is to be aware of the larger picture. This is about the FISA violations. The same games played and violations committed during the 2004 elections and RNC demonstrations will occur.
Plan on the RNC attacking their own offices again. Their goal is to blame the DNC. Your job is to ensure that your organization remains disciplined. And that you discuss with local officials how your RNC offices will be protected. These are off limits. But the RNC plans to discredit you. Be prepared. Offer to provide joint security teams with both RNC and DNC officials around the important RNC offices. Be open to protecting them.
But remain focused on the issue: The FISA violations.
The RNC may refuse assistance. Ensure the media is there to witness this refusal. This recording will be important for others to see. Ensure your friends commit to remain disciplined.
The national leadership will make decisions about which states to put the focus. They will decide how much money to channel to advertising. Their goal is to create momentum. The RNC is exploring how to discredit these media messages. Their goal is to claim your work is a distraction.
Know this is about one thing: FISA violations. You are doing the right thing. You are focused.
Everything the RNC is saying is about distraction and excuses. Take the high ground. Remind them this is about fact finding – just like Iraq. And Iran.
The RNC is not about fact finding. They are about the agenda. Reality is meaningless to the RNC.
Your national leadership will need your help. They will want you to be polite, respectful, and diplomatic when you discuss these issues with local officials.
Some may refuse. Some may question your judgment. Some may yell at you. They may even be rude. This is to be expected.
You are not alone. There are 49 other states. Other people are making progress.
Share what you learn and observe. Others, before they engage with their state level officials may learn something.
Your job is to keep focused: on the FISA violations.
With time, you will get more guidance on how things are going, which state legislators are or are not listening. Be prepared to adjust your energy and schedule. You may be asked to increase you efforts in your state; or asked to encourage others in other states to take action. Be flexible.
Think back to the 2004 election. Remember the many people who appeared from other states. They will appear again. And they will also be in the RNC. This is to be expected.
The national leadership will provide guidance to the state legislators and you. The State legislators are free to ignore this information. The purpose of this information will be to outline what the House and Senate will most likely take action on.
The State legislators will need information on the FISA violations. They will also ask questions about the process of state level impeachment. They will want to know about the House rules. They want to know what type of articles of impeachment will be desirable. They want to do the right thing.
Your job is to remain focused on the FISA violations. And to ensure that the national and state leadership are on the same page. There will be some communications issues. This is to be expected. But there will be a deadline for a preliminary set of ground rules, similar to the Conyers report: [Copies: PDF, HTML WPD ]
This report will outline in a single document the information which will be most useful for the state and national leadership to use. The guide is not intended to be an instruction. It is intended to organize, assist, answer questions, and make it clear what the issue is all about: the FISA violations.
The plan will be there to assist you in your state work. It will guide you to watch the process. It will provide information for your state level officials to make an informed decision, and have a debate.
Many states may choose not to participate. This is acceptable. Do not make threats.
The goal of this plan will be to ensure the national communication strategy is integrated with the impeachment agenda: What is to be done, the deadlines, and how this fits in with the 2006 election cycle. The RNC is doing the same.
When you are planning, prepare for the RNC disruptions. They will dissuade focus and action with false information. Your goal should be to provide reliable information in a single location. The information needs to be simple, correct, and something that guides and informs with respect and dignity.
The RNC also hopes to dissuade your faith and hope in an impeachment. But there are 50 states. This remains an option at the state level. Not all states will choose to act, but some will review the information.
The states have an important role. They are a check on the federal system when things don’t work well. As now.
The RNC is about an agenda. They have shown they will violate the law to achieve their goal.
Unfortunately, it has grown into fashion for local officials and the FBI to not bother looking into issues of malfeasance. Nor do the local officials necessarily care if law enforcement does or doesn’t take an interest.
But times have changed. Many communities have rebuffed the Patriot Act. The local officials do care. They want to know whether law enforcement is or isn’t doing their job. They want to know if you are being misled.
This is to be expected.
There is something called interstate commerce. Congress has the power to regulate this.
It remains to be understood through discovery and subsequent reports from you whether there is admissible evidence about RNC threats against state officials.
The longer the RNC delays, the longer the list of evidence grows. Each second, the RNC is providing more opportunity for you and others in your state to observe interference with interstate commerce.
State officials have an oath. It is not to the RNC, nor the flag. Their oath at the State level is to the US Constitution.
This is the RNC’s problem. And they know this.
The State officials are not loyal just to their state, but to a higher calling – the US Constitution. This means in your state, officials have a duty to explore whether they should or should not take action on impeachment.
The US Congress House rules permit impeachment to start in the State Legislatures. Any one of the 50 state legislatures may do this.
IT remains to be seen how many RNC communications will be recorded outlining their plans to retaliate against state officials for honoring their oath to the US Constitution.
The State officials are your officials. They work for you. Their oath is to a Federal Document.
Your job is to remain focused on the issue: The FISA violations. The RNC goal is to dissuade your state officials from honoring their oath.
The RNC will say your state has no role – but it does. Your oaths are to the US Constitution.
The RNC will say that the issue is too complicated – it is best left to the courts. But the House rules say the State Legislatures have a role. And debates will permit the State officials understand. Debates provide clarity. Debates help simplify.
The RNC is about the opposite: Confusion, complexity, and murkiness.
The RNC will say that the states have no solution. But the States do have a solution – to debate where the Congress refuses to act – the solution is to explore and see if there is evidence behind the articles of impeachment.
The RNC will point to dark clouds, or evil things in the Middle East – saying, “If there is a problem, the States will regret it.” The RNC hopes you do not keep someone accountable to the rule of law, or forget about the FISA violations.
The RNC will say that you may suffer a future consequence for action today. But you will remind them that if you fail to take action today, you are not free. One cannot argue they are fighting for freedom in Iraq, when the same RNC denies that freedom to you.
You have the right to speak, to encourage your State Officials to discuss this issue. The RNC will say there is no time. Remind the RNC that this was the excuse they offered over Iraq – they said there was a deadline, but now we know the truth – The claim was to get a person to commit to something that was false.
Just like the FISA violations.
It remains to be understood how many state officials the RNC is promising things to so that State Officials do not honor their oath.
This is called making threats or promises in order to get a public official to do or not do something they should.
This is bribery in exchange for official in action.
This is another piece of evidence of corruption.
It remains a matter of evidence how many RNC officials have bribed your state officials to interfere with their oaths of office. The discussions continue.
Those who dissuade your state officials to review this matter are aiding and abetting in dissuading your state officials from doing something they should do: Consider their oath of office, and review the evidence about the FISA violations.
Congress has failed. The states have a duty. Your state officials need to keep focused on the issue: The FISA violations.
The issue before us is clear: FISA violations.
The RNC has one goal – to distract attention from that focus.
They will say that if you assert your right to discuss this issue -- something will happen. They hope to scare you.
But think about what they are doing. They are saying if you do something today – that you are lawfully allowed to do – you will suffer a consequence.
That is not freedom.
But they hope to make you believe you will be free if you do nothing.
But think about it another way.
The RNC hopes to make you believe that if you exercise your right today, you will suffer in the future – so in order to protect your freedom, you should not do something.
That is backwards. That is George Orwell. That is asking you to believe a lie – that inaction today will preserve your rights.
But your goal isn’t to preserve your rights. Your coal is simple: To use your rights. A right preserved, but not used is an option – but when we choose inaction out of fear of losing our right, we no longer enjoy the benefit of that right.
If you fear losing something in the future – and are promised something today for doing nothing – then you’ve already given up your rights.
A right which cannot be exercised out of fear is not a right, but a dream; a rich which cannot be exercised is slavery; a slave unwilling to breath is soon dead.
You are free. You are free. You are free. To breath, to exercise your rights, to think, and enjoy your freedom to do what is lawful.
There may be a time when you face law enforcement. The RNC likes to use law enforcement to harass. They also like to use the legal system to scare you.
I encourage you to review the Law Collective Website. There is useful information there.
One thing the RNC likes to do is make you believe you have to have time to get ready for trial. But this is a ruse.
The RNC is trying to make you believe you have to defend yourself. This is a lie.
The burden of proof is on the RNC and the State. But you are obeying the law.
The Just Law Collective website has cartoons. They are very good drawings. They help explain in simple terms what the RNC likes to do. See: "Story" at this link -- there are several
Another thing they like to do is make you talk. But the burden of proof is on the RNC.
Law enforcement is not your friend. They have one goal – to put you in jail. They will lie. They will fabricate evidence. They will change videos. They will splice things.
They will try to trick you -- Their goal is to get you to confess to something you did not do.
Your job is to remain silent and remember one thing: The FISA violations.
Review the Just Law Collective Website. Stick together. Remember the lessons of Martin Luther King, Jr. Recall how the prisoners continued to sing in jail, and how their discipline inspired the guards.
Your job is to remain focused on the FISA violations. And know that although you may be in prison, you are not alone. Others are with you. And doing all they can to get you out.
Know that you will be monitored, threatened, and possibly harmed while in American prisons. But it will not last forever.
One day, you will see the sun rise again. And the land will be free from this tyrant.
Yes, you may be scared, but remain silent.
Law enforcement will lie. They will say that someone said something. But honor your agreement to remain silent. The burden of proof is on others.
They will ask you to sign forms. The law enforcement will say that you will have time to prepare. But there is no need to sign anything. You do not need time.
The state has the burden. The State has the problem. The state is the one that has to convict you.
Never give up your right to a speedy trial. And make sure you are silent until your lawyer is with you.
The police with say that if you do not speak to them, you can be arrested. That is fine. Choose silence. Wait for your lawyer. The law enforcement will lie to you to make you speak. The second you open your mouth, they will start lying to you more.
Their goal is to distract your focus. Get you to talk. And make you forget about the FISA violations.
Law enforcement is not your friend. They will lie to you. Their goal is simple: To put you in jail.
It remains a matter of evidence to what extent your treatment will become a 42 USC 1983. Do not threaten law enforcement with a lawsuit. Calmly accept what is happening, but know that it will not last forever.
Be brave, and learn the stories of those who were in the GITMO on the Hudson. What they saw, what they learned, and how they did well under difficult conditions.
Prepare yourself and know that you have within you the ability to do just fine, even if you are afraid or sacred.
The RNC has one goal: their agenda. They do not care about you.
The RNC hopes to convince you to be scared, make you believe in non-sense. Their goal is to affect your mind.
They hope to convince you of absurdity. They want you to be stupid. They hope to paint dark clouds.
They have created a mess. But then they whine that the DNC does not have a solution.
There is only one thing you need to remember: the FISA violations.
The RNC plans to trash your constitution. They will explain it away as necessary. They want you to believe in non-sense.
The RNC wants you to believe that to “save America, you must give up your rights.”
But that is silly. Your job isn’t to save America. Your job is to remember the FISA violations.
The Constitution already exists. You have no obligation to save America. The Constitution is the framework for America.
If there is no Constitution, we self-evidently have no America. If you give up your rights, you no longer have a Constitution.
In order to have a right and enjoy a right, that right must be more than enjoyed. It must be asserted, even when it is hard. Even when law enforcement is lying to you, or threatening to you.
Think again about the Law Collective Website. Remember the games law enforcement will play. But these are not games. These are threats to do one thing – to make you uncomfortable, to intimidate you, to manipulate you.
Remember one thing: The FISA violations.
The White House has one solution t this mess – it hopes to affect interstate commerce. It hopes to make people believe they can or cannot do something.
But the White House has no say on interstate commerce. The Congress does.
Remember what is going on. The White House has violated the FISA Act. Their goal is to make you believe they are the solution.
This is incorrect. The White House wants you to believe that the criminals are the only ones who can decide what is to be done.
But this is not how America works. The criminals have no say. The judges do.
But in the case of an impeachment, there are no courts and no judges. There is only Congress.
Yes, there may be later consequences in court, but that is another matter.
The RNC wants you to believe if you stand up for yourself, you may lose your livelihood. The RNC wants you to believe that it is best to roll over and watch all that you value burn.
But what does the RNC value? Not the Constitution. But the Flag.
Make them choose: Do they wish to burn the Flag or the Constitution? They put a lot of energy into protecting the flag, not the Constitution. Why is that?
Because they wave the flag to distract you from the FISA violations.
With time, we will learn which state legislators are willing to explore the FISA violations.
But there is something to remember.
Some in Congress have said they would not vote for impeachment. But think about this. Were they committing to a vote without looking at the evidence?
Actually, there is something else going on. Some Representatives have incorrectly believed only the Judiciary Committee can do anything. This is incorrect. The states, territories, and grand juries also have a role.
Some in Congress have incorrectly believed that because the RNC controls the House, that the RNC will never do anything about impeachment. They are wrong.
That is why the States are important. And why the Congressman may or may not rethink their position.
Some Congressmen believe that the Judiciary Committee would never vote to investigate. But this doesn’t matter. The 50 states can investigate and issue articles of impeachment to the House.
What needs to happen is ask the question again: “If any of the 50 states were to issue articles of impeachment to the House, would you vote for them?”
The Congressmen cannot claim that the articles will disappear in the Committee.
Rather, the real possibility exists – despite RNC control of the Judiciary Committee – the states may issue articles of impeachment directly to the House.
Then the RNC members will have to vote. Up or down. There is no filibuster in the House.
The Federal Government was warned. They know their oaths of office.
State level action is possible. The Federal government has failed.
The RNC has acted as if nothing could be done.
America has seen enough of the dilly-dallying around.
Recall the Declaration of Independence – this nation objected to violations of the law. This issue is about the FISA violations.
We were forced to assent to the Patriot Act. But this is about the FISA violations.
We’ve heard weak legal defenses from the US Attorney General, but this has nothing to do with the rule of law.
One guide for the state debates is the ACLU complaint. It is fairly easy and simple to read. It will give your state legislators something to review. It is a guide to the misconduct, and how specific people have been affected by the unlawful and warrantless monitoring.
The issue before us is about the Constitution – and this President’s claims that he is immune to the rule of law.
There will be discussion about whether Nixon’s adventures in Cambodia do or do not apply to day. But today’s issue is the FISA violations.
There will be discussion whether Americas are or are not making progress in Iran or Iraq. But this has nothing to do with FISA violations.
One cannot wage war based on lies, then lie about violations of the law.
This President wants to claim all things after 9-11 are lawful – just as long as he is the final decider.
But there are small problems. The Constitution does not grant the President all power related to the military. Congress decides the rules of capture – not the President.
The Constitution is clear. The Constitution is based on the violations King George Made. The Constitution is written to solve the problems outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Some of the abuses included taking people to foreign shores without trial for abuse. The same is going on today.
The message is simple: This nation must prevent additional violations of the law.
We know of the FISA violations.
The RNC has one goal: Their agenda. This means to advance their agenda, they will thwart all other agendas.
Their goal is to delay the hearings, to drag things out, to not let people decide based on facts.
The RNC wants all things hidden. The RNC wants to dive into many issues unrelated to the FISA violations. They do this with one goal: So there is no final decision on the FISA violations. They do this so that the list of issues grows long, but never resolved.
This is by design.
This is why we must stay focused on what we know: The FISA violations. We cannot let the list of abuses grow so long that it takes forever to investigate. But that is the goal of the RNC – to defer it to investigation, but then never find facts.
The facts are clear. This President violated the FISA statutes. The issue is simple: He violated the law.
Your job is to remain focused on the issue: FISA violations.
And your goal should be to use anything the RNC says against them – all the while reminding them that the RNC does nothing to resolve the FISA violations.
It is that simple, and it will be very challenging.
There are many other issues. There is 9-11. There is Sibel Edmonds. Able Danger. The Iraq WMD. The Downing Street Memo.
These are symptoms of the same problem.
What we do know is that the FISA violations are clear, simple, and known.
All that is required to impeach is for the states to pass articles of impeachment, then provide these to the House for a vote.
But, the RNC will hope to dissuade action. The RNC will do as they did in December 2005 – throwing around many legal arguments. But these legal arguments will be twisted.
The RNC has only one goal: Their agenda. They do not care whether they misstate the law, or selectively twist the case law. Their goal is to do what they can to brush aside concerns with reality, and advance their agenda.
They offer war powers of the President, but say nothing of the Congressional powers over the military. Perhaps the Congress may issue new orders to raise a new army. The Constitution puts the Congress, no the President, in charge of raising the army.
It is time for the states to look at this mess. The states need to review the conduct. The states must debate. The states must make conclusions about what conduct is or is not a crime.
Yes, there are many other issues other than the FISA Act violations. There is more evidence. But we must review only what we have, not what we may have after an infinite search and infinite RNC stonewalls.
There are many other issues and questions besides the FISA. But these must be addressed by Congress. The states should be encouraged to provide recommendations attached to their articles of impeachment.
But the focus must remain on the FISA violations. Those are known, and admitted. Very simple to get the state to focus on this narrow issue.
It is another matter whether the House votes up or down. But the point is simply that the good gentleman from Wisconsin has no say in whether another state may or may not debate the FISA violations and bring articles of impeachment.
The good gentleman from Wisconsin will need to explain why the rules which were good enough for Delay are not good enough for this President. Why is there a proposed change to the rules? He has no answer, he only has an agenda.
The small trifle known as the House rules. It is no matter that the RNC failed to use this option before, or that they spent many months reviewing a matter when a single state action may have sufficed. All the more evidence to question the ability of the RNC to effectively lead on a simple matter; self-evidently we have a mess when the matter turns to something complicated like reality.
Yes, there are other issues beside FISA. But the way forward is to encourage the State Legislators to stay focused on the narrow issue. This will expedite their review, simplify the issues, and present them with a workable list of definable issues.
This is not to say the state legislators cannot handle complicated matters. Rather it is to permit them the brevity of considering something succinctly as opposed to extending their attention beyond their normal agendas. But they are up to the task.
We are almost 300 million people. And 50 states. Surely, out of 50 one will dare to heed the call.
The states need to review Gore’s speech. They need to discuss the general views of all the issues related to the FISA violations. With time, the Congress will be ready to discuss the needed solutions.
Think broadly in terms of the Declaration of Independence. What is needed is a finite list of issues – and then an clear solution – as was the Constitution.
Today is no different – we have specific issues – and specific solutions are possible.
The issue remains in its infancy. Just a few short weeks ago we were asked to believe fiction. No we know the truth – the FISA violations.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will look at the issues.
The national leadership needs to set a deadline for the States to review the matters. It will only take one state to issue the articles of impeachment to the House.
At the same time, after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, there may be a change of heart. Perhaps the Congress may vote to have a full House Judiciary investigation. That is possible.
But the message to DC should be clear – if you fail in your oaths, the states are willing to act. This is a dual track.
The RNC may have some believe that they will only investigate if the states agree to do nothing. That is a ruse.
Rather, the states should take the opposite approach: Until the House impeaches the President, the States will continue their work, until one of them does what the RNC has failed to do: State reality in simple terms that the House can comprehend.
There will be calls to extend the fact finding into many issues. But this is a ruse. The RNC has a goal of extending the investigation, keeping it secret, and suppressing the truth until after the 2008 election. By then, nobody will be interested.
Rather, by 2008 we’ll be so full of RNC non-sense, that it may be reasonable to question one’s sanity. But why bring up matters of religion.
You are encouraged to follow the Senate. Encourage your state officials to monitor the review into the FISA violations.
Challenge your senators to do better than they did with the Alito Hearing – fully prepared to focus on major issues, ready to engage on the core issues.
The leadership needs to lock in a date on their calendar. Something that will commit to a FISA decision – a notion of when they would like the States to have concluded their discussions, and forward one set of impeachment.
Perhaps it may be more effective to assign a committed state delegation, and coordinate this effort among many states. The goal isn’t to have many states – but to send a clear signal that the states will produce a result, not matter what the RNC may or may not do.
There are many variables the leadership may consider. One decision is to be whish state to put more energy and focus on to. Again, the goal here isn’t to gamble on a single state, but to make it clear to the RNC that there are 50 potential debates they must content with – at the same time that we are entering the 2006 elections.
This is why the states must be part of the process. The state level debates are about the states – what they value, how they see things, their priorities.
The national leadership must respect that the states have different views, other needs, and local agendas. This should not be a tug of war match between the state and local leadership.
Rather, it should be a common effort to assert the Constitution through our oaths of office on someone who has violated the law.
It remains to be seen how effective the national mobilization works. But make no mistake, citizen are not silent.
And they should be encouraged to independently and collectively communicate their concerns, ideas, and through on this matter to the state legislators.
Even if the answer is ultimately “No, we will do nothing,” that is important to know. It will tell the rest of the country where that state stands on the rule of law. It will give the world a fair notice how that state delegation views violations of the law.
The public will benefit with this debate at the state level. We will hear state level officials openly discuss a matter related to the rule of law. This is important information. The public can get a sense of whether the rule of law is important.
These are important things to know. People in other states may like to know that one state has a more effective and efficient method of dealing with issues. Conversely, this open debate on a common issue will calibrate the public: Let the public see which states fail to make progress. This is useful information. The voters may choose to take this into consideration in 2006 – those legislators who have a difficult time understanding simple things may not be suited for public service.
The public may or may not be upset. The progress of the state-level debates will give the leadership feedback on whether more information is needed. Conversely, it may be self-evident that the public is well ahead of the leadership, already committed to forcing the House to take a vote. It remains to be seen.
But the polling data on the FISA violations will tell us who the people who are most upset over the NSA warrantless spying; and how to focus more energy on those states that are more likely to support a state-level debate.
Perhaps the national leadership needs to pick the top 6 states which are most likely to vote for the articles of impeachment; perhaps focusing on the high percentage of DNC voters.
But it may be more suitable to do the opposite: Put more energy into getting the states with the greatest number of RNC delegates openly defy the law, commit to taking no action on this issue, and refuse to discuss the issue.
Again, the possibilities are endless. The point is that the RNC no longer controls the national agenda. Rather, the Constitution is the agenda, not the RNC.
It remains to be seen how many states the RNC threatens to retaliate against for discussing this issue; or what the blowback may be against the RNC.
Remember, if a right is not asserted – the right is meaningless. One cannot say they are for democracy in Iraq, but refuse to engage in open debate at the state level.
How will the state governors, the commander in chiefs of their state militias, -- how will the state governors explain to the troops serving in Iraq, “You’re there fighting for democracy, but we won’t have a debate over the constitution in the state”?
Yes, DoD may threaten to cut off funding to states that engage in this debate. And Congress may choose to make new rules, to raise a new army. Some Flag Officers may be asked to retire, or not given a promotion for interfering with political issues.
It remains to be explained whether the military is following lawful orders – when it moves outside the base realignment and closure process – and closes facilities in states the RNC wishes to retaliate against.
Before us in February and March are the markups over the President’s Budget.
NSA’s Alexander has been discredited. His December 2005 comments are as worthless as DoJ’s memoranda to the Congress.
There is no legal foundation for the program. All defense fail. Iran is a distraction.
It is another matter whether the House chooses to write new rules authorizing a filibuster, and avoiding a vote on articles of impeachment.
There are 50 states. Does the RNC hope to dissuade a discussion in all of them? If so, let the Iraqis know what the RNC has brought you – promises of self-government, only if you agree to discuss issues on the RNC agenda, not the Iraqi agenda.
Soon, Iraq will enjoy movement and sovereignty. Soon America will no longer speak about Iraq as if it were troubled American State. One day, America may talk about Louisiana and the Gulf Coast with as much interest they have to Iraq.
Iraq is no longer something the US can dictate terms to. But, in practice, we know the RNC will assert their agenda, despite the grand principles they say they were fighting for in Iraq.
Notice what happens with the discussions over the state issues and the FISA. Contrast those with what happens in Iraq. The RNC is likely to blame the DNC saying, “They offer no solutions.’
The real problem is the RNC sticks to failed agendas, ones that should have been buried in Hitler’s bunker in Berlin.
Yes, there are questions.
Let’s consider the potential risk. Is there a concern that if the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts oversight and reviews the matter, that it will be doing what should be done in the House – namely engaging in investigation?
Or is it appropriate to allow the Senate to investigate, so long as the House performs its vital role – charging.
Or is there e a problem with the Senate investigating a criminal matter it will later act as a jury to oversee?
Perhaps these issues are irrelevant. But it would be a shame to find out the RNC plans to assert the Judiciary Hearing is unconstitutional – all the more reason to give the information to the states, let them review the matter, and have at least one of them issue their allegations to the House for a formal vote.
Then again, perhaps there is no issue, and the Senate Judiciary Committee should proceed with all due speed, and ignore the potential question.
Regardless the approach, the message should be clear: The Federal Government has failed to timely preserve the system of checks and balances.
Indeed, many in the RNC assert that the system of checks and balances is working just fine. That remains curious given the unfavorable weather and the lack of interest in checking the Phase II investigation. Perhaps that should be part of a specific list of charges an assigned-state legislature is given the special task to review on its own and report its findings to the House in a subsequent impeachment.
Recall, the 10th Amendment. The rights and powers not delegated to the Federal Government belong to us, not the RNC to trash. You have made a grave error in mistaking the commitment to assert the rule of law.
You have done well – and have been successfully trained on what you most need to ignore. When it gets worse, you can chime in a chorus, “We should have listened.”
The states need to act. The Federal government appears to be stuck in the headlights. The President signs laws he has no intention of following.
It is time to remind the President of the checks and balances. He cannot stay insulated from reality forever. There are 50 state legislatures he now has to potentially deal with. None of them are as predictable as a Congress well fattened with promises.
The RNC has shown itself incapable of defending itself against the Libby indictments, or preventing discussion about the NSA warrantless surveillance. And that was at the national level.
The RNC problems are compounded when the 50 states are reminded of their option to bring artless of impeachment to the House.
The RNC has brought this on itself. Rather than resolve the issue at the federal level, the world stage will see the drawbacks of a federal system, and the need for local debate. This is quite a change from the PNAC vision.
Rest assured, the vision will be repurposed to appease those who dare shift their eyes from the FISA violations.
Will the RNC be able to manipulate all 50 state legislatures as they did with the single Iraqi Congress?
Self-regulation has failed in DC. It’s time to remind the Congress that the States have a view on matters and their vote counts, even when it is ignored.
The States may wish to debate the following issues, but these will have little bearing on whether the President did or didn’t violate the FISA act.
We are at war against specific individuals. It remains unclear why – despite not having defeated these individuals – we subsequently started a second war with a second front in a country that was not an imminent threat.
This President lied about WMD. This Vice President threatened specific NSA and CIA analysts. This President made it clear to NSA and CIA management that other conclusions were desired. It remains a matter of evidence whether the President has been recorded making specific threats to specific individuals.
The results are self-evident: A war without legal foundation, no evidence, and a distraction.
It appears so. If there is a nuclear program in Iran, then NSA and CIA should have [a] picked up signals intelligence; and [b] provided that to the IAEA for [c] confirmation. But the IAEA, like the inspectors in Iraq, continue to turn over mushrooms, and find no evidence of what the White House says.
The President is not authorized to wage illegal war; and inherent authority, if it were real, should have been asserted by not asking Congress what they thought on the use of force. Thus, given the President’s reliance on Congress as a shield to engage in unlawful war, the President cannot claim he has inherent authority to do anything, especially when the constitution specifically states the opposite – it is the role of Congress to declare war and raise armies.
The issue becomes, how does the President know “who the right person to torture is?” Someone must have told him, “Why this person is the right person to torture.”
IF someone isn’t willing to cooperate, why not ask the original person who said, “they know”. How does this second person know “who really knows”?
The FBI knows there is no active AlQueda. So what is the NSA monitoring? If the NSA knows the specific people who are supposedly in AlQueda – and we are at war with AlQueda – why isn’t the President relying on his “inherent authority” to bring them to justice?
The answer appears to be the President – despite the warrantless surveillance – has no evidence, but is convinced in his own mind the evidence is there.
Notice the pattern: Assertions without evidence – what the 4th Amendment was supposed to prevent – unreasonable searches in search of evidence that doesn’t exist.
The British Army ransacked homes. Otis spoke of the need to protect the people – not just the right – but the individual. The individual is not protected when the NSA has engaged in unlawful conduct, but destroyed the evidence of those violations.
There are backup tapes.
Some in the RNC has whined, “No matter what the President does, people are complaining.”
Indeed, it is just to complain when the President refuses to assent to the rule of law.
Then the RNC whines, “Oh, but if something bad happens, then you’re going to blame Bush.” Indeed – despite engaging in warrantless surveillance before 9-11, something bad happened – but Bush Didn’t get blamed.
Why is the President worried this time about getting blamed? The answer: Bush doesn’t care what the people think – he didn’t care about them before 9-11; and still doesn’t care.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes some sort of “inevitable future problem is going to occur” – and asks that we tolerate specific, known abuses to prevent that hypothetical.
This is the same as giving up our rights today, in the hopes that we might get something in the future. But the problem with that is simple: The state has intruded upon us on the basis of fiction; all the while challenging us to be silent about that intrusion; then compelling us to be silent about the abuses, while other actions look to the US and ask, “Is that how we want to live?”
Self-evidently, people around the globe are saying, “We don’t want the kind of life the Americans are creating. It is one thing to have a standard of living. Quite another to have a standard of decency.” America may have nice grocery stores, but the freedom to shop is meaningless when you are not free.
People around the globe choose to have their way of life, nor ours; choose to live with a substandard living, rather than embrace tyranny. They are free, not slaves.
The world notices. How does America resolve this issue.
And the answer relates to what happened prior to 9-11: Is America willing to face reality, or not. The President knew reality before 9-11: He was engaging in unlawful surveillance. The President knew this. Curious, how the states will review the “inherent authority” the President says he has after congress voted for it; it appears the claim of power was asserted regardless whether Congress did or did not act.
But it remains to be seen whether the RNC will or will not review this matter. Fortunately, we have 50 state legislators who may have another view in light of their oath of office to the US Constitution.
If you’re looking for other resources, may I suggest the following:
Some have considered changes to the ethics rules.
It remains to be seen whether lobbyists appear before the Congress hat in hand full of food, or offering t-shirts made of gold.
We begin with the State proclamation. As we proceed, there will be some challenges. You are up to the task.
The RNC and White House have planned smokescreens. We will continue to monitor developments. This information in this box is designed to assist you.
This information shows you the major flaws with the RNC defenses. Read this when you have the chance. You will be mentally ready and focused when the RNC non-sense starts.
The links are to supporting material you may wish to review. It will help you see the weaknesses of the arguments. Know the RNC has no defense, and all statements they make are without merit.
FISA violations: All White House defenses are absurd. Grand jury continues to exploit White House infighting. NSA program: What we know is just the tip of the iceberg. Encourage your State Legislators to closely follow the Senate Judiciary Hearings into the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. NSA's Leadership discredited when they issued unreliable statements related to the unlawful program. Washington DC has failed to assert the rule of law and honor oaths of office. The States have an obligation to act. Powell: A case study in failure of checks and balances. [Powell's selective memory problem on WMD: Before 9-11, Iraq had no WMD; after 9-11, WMD appeared like mushrooms. Powell blames others for his delusions.] Iran: Why Iran is a deliberate distraction, and there exists no credible basis for lawful DoD targeting. [IAEA has not been provided information on any Iranian program -- so what is DoD targeting? They have no information. Same as Iraq.] Grand Jury continues to exploit fissures in the American Military's Joint Staff and NSA leadership. [They won't chase Bin Ladin at Tora Bora, but they've got your home wiretapped. Who's the enemy to the Constitution? The President.] Ticking time bomb scenario: The critical question they never ask you to consider. [This explains the RNC fear mongering. It is an excuse to engage in war crimes and violate Article 1 Section 8.] |
The RNC is in a no-win situation.
They have wished for this.
Hoc voluerunt !
posted by Constant @ 7:48 PM
<< Home