Multiple Impeachments of a Sitting President

Its rare for a President to be impeached. Tyrants deserve multiple impeachments, the last one being the best.

Defying precedent, there are four (4) impeachments on the table between November 2006 and January 2009.

Which one do you support?

Ref It took many steps to get to the Moon in the Appllo program: Why should impeachment be different?

Ref Consider any military operations: There is never a single option, but alternatives. Why not approach impeachment the same way?

* * *

Multiple Impeachments

Only two President have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Their impeachment had multiple articles.

Multiple impeachments, each with multiple articles of impeachment, is unprecedented, appropriate and warranted.

* * *

There’s been some talk as if the President may or may be impeached. The thinking goes along these lines: Unless there’s an investigation that is complete, the basis for the impeachment will be seen as invalid.

This assertion is not valid for the following reasons:

(1) Congress Can Demonstrate Leadership

Multiple impeachments would give the Congress the chance to show the world that it can effectively manage something, unlike the President charged with maladministration. Non-voters might be inspired to have confidence in an effective Congress that well manages the oversight with well-crafted, well organized effort to impose multiple impeachments on the Executive.

___ Without showing the world that the Congress can oversee four different, well contemplated reviews of the President, why should anyone believe Congress can effectively oversee a budget, a war, or effectively respond to something complicated like a crisis?

(2) Investigations Can Be Ongoing, but do not have to be complete

There is no requirement that “the” investigation be complete. The pattern of maladministration is large. It is possible to narrow the specific crimes to one or two things for this impeachment, and save other charges for the next impeachment

___ If Congress won’t plan to oversee the President with four impeachments, why should American voters have confidence in Congress, regardless the Party in Power?

___ Isn’t the way forward to find new leaders, regardless their party, who are willing to organize and lead, not make excuses to do nothing?

(3) Multiple Impeachments are Constitutional

A President is not subject to only one impeachment during their term in office. The President’s conduct is forever reviewable.

___ If Congress will not visualize something that might work, why should We the People believe Congress is able to comprehend the solutions, problems, or the causal drivers behind those problems?

(4) Several Impeachments Will Separate the Charges

The House may choose to have four rounds of impeachment, focusing the first impeachment on the well known, non-disputable allegations that are well supported; and the second and third impeachment related to other criminal activity that is less certain, but fairly well known. The fourth impeachment could be the clean-up of the remaining charges.

___ Does Congress have a plan to more effectively manage Committee Calendars?

(5) The Senate Has No Power to Reject Multiple Impeachments

The Senate is not permitted to say how many trials it will or will not have. The Senate has no power to say how the House will or will not charge the President. The Senate has no input into the number of charges; or the scope of the House investigation.

___ When will the House assert power regardless what the President or Senate might say?

(6) Testing the Senate

Multiple impeachments would give We the People a chance to see how this Senate will respond to various levels of evidence. The first impeachment could be a test of something that is well established, easy to prove, and would not take much time. This would quickly put the House Managers before the Senate, and give We the People a chance to see how serious the Senate is in responding to the allegations or whether they are or are not serious about reviewing evidence. This feedback would be important for the primary-preparations to lawfully target for removal Members of Congress who are not taking their Oaths of office seriously.

___ Is there a reason why We the People should believe the Senators should not be lawfully removed for defying their oath, not considering the evidence, and failing to convict someone who has alleged engaged in war crimes?

___ If the Senate will not act to protect the Constitution, why should they be re-elected to office in 2008 or for the White House?

___ If the Senate will not review the information related to the Presidential abuses, how can any of them argue they are a viable candidate to solve the problems they refuse to consider?

(7) Testing Oaths of Office

Constitutional challenges are needed, and a way to test the effectiveness and seriousness of Members of Congress is to make them perform in multiple rounds. The Members of Congress cannot lazily believe that the impeachment is a single event; but that the course of conduct over the series of impeachments is something We the People will monitor, evaluate, and determine whether they remain committed to their oath of office, respond to feedback, or comprehend that a failure to do something can be remedies by supporting subsequent impeachment efforts.

___ Is there a reason Members of Congress are not willing to have their integrity publicly challenged?

(8) Subsequent Modifications

Based on the first impeachment, the Senate and House would jointly conclude a result, and the outcome would be something We the People could use to evaluate what other types of evidence, charges, and other things should be reviewed. We the People would have the chance to determine how to shape the subsequent impeachments; and whether we wanted to break the planned 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, impeachments into different groupings to better couch the misconduct.

___ What better way to demonstrate competent leadership than to use the lessons of the 1st and 2nd impeachment to resolve the issues and lawfully remove the President from office with the final presentation of war crimes evidence in the 4th impeachment?

* * *

The way forward is to not think as impeachment as a single event, but a series of House actions that could be spread over time.

The investigations could be ongoing, but as the simple charges could be drafted, those could be forwarded to the first impeachment. As information subsequently surfaces, they could be packaged in the 2nd and 3rd impeachments.

The approach would allow investigators to have confidence that there will be a timely floor action on the House and Senate related to what is well known. There would be no sense of rush that things have to be accelerated; and as the Members of Congress debate the issues, the subsequent impeachments could be tailored to respond to their original concerns.

Subsequent investigations could be directed to make various charges more robust based on the concerns that Members of Congress have openly raised. Once Members on the various committees raise concerns, and investigators able to provide evidence to support additional charges related to those concerns, We the People will see that the subsequent impeachments have more merit; and that Senate refusal to remove will have less credibility.

No credible argument can be made that the impeachment is a single event, which must be supported by exhaustive, timely, and distracting investigations. This argument incorrectly assumes that the evidence does not already exist, or that the various charges will take time to properly present. Rather, it is possible to quickly organize a few simple charges, warm up Congress to the ongoing Presidential reviews, and make it clear that the investigation will not drag on for years, but that the impeachment actions will continue until the President either resigns or is convicted.

* * *

The primary benefit of many impeachments is that as more Members of Congress are forced to commit either for or against the charges, the scope of the subsequent investigations and public outrage could like trigger new lines of inquiry. A first impeachment will send the signal that things can happen quickly, do not need to be a distraction, and the investigation can quickly result in something which the House can formally present to the Senate.

Overall, multiple impeachments would send a clear signal to this and future Precedents: You may not be removed from office right away, but you shall endure multiple black eyes. Where a President refuses to assent to the rule of law and feels they only need to persuade just over 1/3 of the Senate to support him – and ignore the House – a President should know that where they refuse to do what they should, the House will take action to give them multiple black eyes.

Impeachment is not a single event. It can be a process, and a President can be charged with multiple impeachments. Some Presidents do not appear swayed by a single impeachment. Let their legacy record them as being the first who were multiply charged with multiple impeachments.

This would be unprecedented by design: To remind the Executive that We the People can, in an unprecedented way, create a new standard of recklessness by which future Presidents are measured. Not only whether they resign or are removed from office in disgrace, but how many impeachments their Presidential libraries will either confront or pretend didn’t exist.

* * *

Share with your friends the idea of multiple impeachments against a single President. Present the idea in the context of multiple actions by the same House, in conjunction with other efforts:

(1) State proclamations calling for Congress to impeach
(2) the state Attorney Generals to prosecute a President;
(3) war crimes investigations and prosecutions;
(4) US Attorney and FBI investigations;
(5) State Grand Jury reviews;
(6) State Attorney Disciplinary Board directed at Staff Counsel in Congress and the Executive Branch for their failure to assert their attorney oath of office.

The message is simple: The House is not required to put all the information in a single list of charges. Investigations can be spread out, and as more information is disclosed, new impeachments can be prepared for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds.

The message to the President is simple: there are many different groups, organizations, and entities sharing information. They are not required to consolidate their efforts for a single milestone or deadline. The information sharing is ongoing. The House has the option to issue multiple impeachments. Any Member of Congress who says the information sharing and investigations can only be complete after lengthy reviews are misguided. There is a lot of information already on the table that could be easily packaged into the first impeachment.

* * *

Discussion

Here are some questions you and your friends may wish to consider, raise with your elected officials in the State and DC, and challenge them to make a case why this would not work, or is not acceptable.

___ What is the reason that there cannot be four impeachments?

___ Why do investigations have to result in only one impeachment?

___ When will the information, that is already available supporting removal from office, be quickly provided to the House for the 1st Impeachment?

___ Is there a plan by the House to review how the Senate does or doesn’t respond to the information so that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts are improved?

___ What is the plan of the various state attorney generals, state proclamation efforts, and the Members of Congress to jointly share information between the Grand Juries, US Attorneys, and FBI agents on the status of what they are finding?

___ Is there anything that would prevent the House from requesting all interested parties to present their evidence in the first week of January, outlining what they have, and issuing a first impeachment by the second week of January?

___ Based on the fist impeachment, what is the plan of the State Attorney Generals to increase their monitoring, targeting, and disbarment efforts directed against the DOJ Staff counsel and Congressional Staff counsel?

___ How will the subsequent information related to US Government staff counsel disbarment efforts be shared across the states to support State Prosecutions of the President?

___ Once the information from the 1st impeachment is shared, how twill the various actors coordinated their efforts to ensure that there is a more robust set of charges in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments?

___ What is the notional timeline of the various interested parties to support 4 impeachment efforts between November 2006 and January 2009?

___ What are the milestones for the 1st impeachment: What information is needed; what types of charges are most easily presented?

___ What is the oversight plan to monitor the effectiveness of the preparation plans for the 1st impeachment effort; how will these lessons be shared around the globe to solicit world inputs to gather evidence for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts?

___ How long will it take after the 1st Impeachment effort in the 2nd week of January 2007 to prepare for the information for the 2nd Impeachment effort?

___ How many Committee hearings are expected t be needed after the 1st Impeachment effort to marshal the evidence and present the evidence?

___ How will the results of the 1st Impeachment effort already underway be used to modify the investigations, evidence, and House and Senate oversight by We the People?

___ What method will be used to translate the Member of Congress feedback into more robust investigations plans, work with the US Attorneys, and present the information in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments to make the charges more difficult to ignore?

___ How will the results of the Senate votes on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachment efforts be used to create media messages for non-voters to encourage them to see that the Senators in both parties are or are not willing to assert their oath?

___ How will the results of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Impeachment efforts be used to show that the US government is or is not competent in facing legal issues; Constitutional violations; supreme violations of the law?

___ What method will be used to support new political options based on the action or inaction of Members of Congress on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachments?

___ What state and federal political strategies will be adjusted based on the new information gleaned: How Members of Congress do or do not do their job?

___ Does a Member of Congress or State official have a reasonable, credible basis not to support an impeachment effort that had multiple impeachment options?

___ Do Members of Congress or State officials have a credible explanation why the simple, small, and easily provable high crimes could not be quickly presented to the House for easily consider as a test of their competence in handling self-evident Presidential criminal conduct?

___ How effective are the House Managers is modifying their approaches in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th impeachment efforts based on the feedback from the first attempts?

___ How successful are the political leaders in generation support for the broad investigation approach with multiple impeachments; or is the support generated because of non-government/citizen-led efforts?

___ Who is showing the most competence in protecting the Constitution

___ Is there a particular state where officials are more responsive to concerns; how are these lessons and successes getting shared?

___ How is early success generating subsequent investigation, evidence, discover, and support for subsequent impeachments in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds?

___ Is there a training program that will supports dissemination of lessons learned, and assists the voters and non-voters to evaluate Members of Congress in their competence to remain Members of Congress?

___ Which guides are most useful for the public to use to monitor the effectives of multiple impeachments?

___ Are Members of Congress giving good reasons why they cannot do their day to day work, and as new information surfaces, make an informed decision whether that information belongs in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ Why is any Member of Congress saying that the investigations will be “long,” when they could be organized to support multiple impeachments, and not be long?

___ Do Members of Congress have a credible reason to explain why multiple impeachments -- with the attached opportunity to make the charges more compelling and less susceptive to a finding of innocence – would not work?

___ Are Members of Congress making credible arguments why another approach would be more credible?

___ Why are Members of Congress asking for long investigations into issues that are already known and could easily be inputted into the first or second impeachments?

___ What is the basis for the Member of Congress assessments on the duration of the investigations?

___ If Members of Congress are saying that some issues may need more time, what is their reason for not agreeing in November 2006 to put those types of charges in the 3rd and 4th impeachment?

___ Do Member of Congress respond to the idea of multiple impeachments?

___ Do Members of Congress have an explanation why, if some information is open, why that information is not quickly packaged into a simple charge?

___ What is the basis to say that the investigations have to be long; can’t the investigations be ongoing, and channel the new information into various milestones: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ Who is to say that the information related to this President has to be put into a single impeachment?

___ If the scope of the activity is large, and the supposed investigations might be long, do Members of Congress have a plan to stagger the charges and evidence so that they are presented in smaller clumps, more manageable, and allow a dual-track approach to governance (1) Day to day business; and (2) The ongoing investigations to channel evidence into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachments?

___ Man went to the Moon in Stages. He didn’t go there on the first time. Why isn’t the same approach begin given to this President: Nibbling away a little at time; testing what does or doesn’t’ work; then finally successfully accomplishing what is ultimately desired: A full assertion of lawful power by We the People through the House and Senate to lawfully impose final review of the Presidents’ alleged war crimes: Conviction for violations of the Geneva conventions, removal, and forwarding that information to the war crimes tribunal at The Hague for final adjudication, which may include lawful death by hanging?

___ Is there a reason Members of Congress are giving you to say that, unlike the Apollo Program, the President accountability has to be handled different?

___ Why are members of Congress arguing one standard for program management in the Department of Defense, NSA, FAA; but they are not willing to apply the same approach to how they do or do not effectively review presidential programs?

___ Software is managed using various levels of reviews. The software isn’t simply created then launched into the ether. There are many trials, reviews, and tests. Why is Congress, when it passes rules related to how the FBI does or does not interface with SAIC on developing the I-Drive to store FBI information not taking the same approach to how the Congress approaches the data and management of the impeachment process: Multiple interactions, subsequent reviews, opportunities to adjust?

___ Why are contractors like Halliburton, KBR, and SAIC given the chance to make multiple interactions on an allegedly illegal contract effort in Iraq to support unlawful warfare; but Congress is not willing to take the same approach when it comes to compelling Congressional missions: Overseeing the President?

___ Is there a reasons that Congress passes rules on how the government does or doesn’t do its activities related to complex projects; but Congress is not willing to apply the same, incremental, and progress approach when it comes to engaging in an effective Presidential oversight program?

___ What’s a good reason why there can’t be 4 Impeachments of this President?

___ What is a reason that a President has abused this much power should not be subject to four different rounds, led by four different investigation teams, that build on the lessons from before and show the President that – unlike Iraq – Congress can plan something, and achieve an effective result?

___ Why can’t Congress build on the lessons of Iraq – learn that something can be solved, planned, and successfully executed – and apply the same approach to impeachment: Gather information, test, building on successes, and ultimately show that the Members of Congress can do what the President refuses to do: Plan, organize, lead, and effectively engage in successive improvements to build on lessens and, with evidence and the skilful guide of evidence, show that the President was lacking in the skills Congress well demonstrates?

___ Why are contractors like SAIC given multiple chances to “eventually get it right” when it comes to DOJ software management; but Congress is expected to get impeachment right in only one effort?

___ If SAIC gets multiple chances to get it right, shouldn’t Congress give itself at least 4 attempts to get impeachment-removal right?

___ Who would have argued that we would only send one mission to attempt to land on the moon?

___ Is someone saying that the first mission would have accomplished everything?

___ Couldn’t the Congress look at the Apollo Program in the same way – the early missions are tests; and the alter missions will explore more complicated things that are related less to testing, and more to novel ideas, and more intriguing aspects?

___ Why is the President, NASA, SAIC< and the Department of Justice given money to arguably waste it on things; but the Congress will not willing to efficiently/effectively manage multiple, focused, well crafted impeachment efforts when it comes to protecting the Constitution – make multiple efforts to support the same objective?

___ Why does the President get multiple chances to “finally get it right in Iraq,” and fails; but Congress is supposed to get impeachment right on the first time, or not at all?

___ Why is the President given multiple chances to engage in illegal activity; but Congress only has one chance to oversee that broad pattern of conduct?

___ Couldn’t impeachment be looked at as many steps, with a chance for improvement, adjustment, and refinement?

___ Why is Congress, if it is not willing to engage impeachment as if it were a Presidential Overnight Program, credibly arguing that it can oversee something more complicated like a DOJ FBI I-drive upgrade?

___ Wouldn’t it be credible for Congress to apply the same rules, standards, program management principles to impeachment as it expects of Program managers managing the DHS databases?

___ If Congress were compelled to use the program-management approach for multiple impeachment efforts, would Members of Congress have a greater appreciation for what was or was not lawful by way of Presidential maladministration of those similar program efforts?

___ If Congress can effectively manage multiple impeachments, isn’t Congress in a credible position to show it can credibly overseas an monitor the many illegal activities in re rendition, NSA-FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal war, fabricated WMD intelligence?

___ By keeping impeachment “off the table,” why should We the People believe that Members of Congress are taking a program-management view toward Presidential oversight?

___ Is there any prospect that the required-desired integration between state-federal and international investigators will be adequately managed if the public is not fully aware of the overall program management effort to support multiple impeachments?

___ Would it not be a credible demonstration of US government competence if, unlike the President in his planning for Iraq, the US Congress could outline a plan showing how the various lines of evidence would better support either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th impeachment?

___ If the 1st impeachment doesn’t work, why not use the lessons to inspire more non-voters to press for more information, and make more calls encouraging Members of Congress?

___ If the voters know that successful attempts at removal would generate more public knowledge, would it not be in the interest of non-voters to participate: Knowing they were part of something that was building and growing: Credible government oversight that is well managed, is well organized, and effectively shows that the US Government can effectively do something spanning many months?

___ Why is Congress saying impeachment is all or nothing: Either you get it right the first time, or we sit around doing nothing for two years until the President lazily decides in 2009 that he might want to think about shaking the new President’s hand outside the Capitol?

___ If there were multiple impeachments, wouldn’t that act as a constant reminder to the President that he’s still in charge, we have more oversight, are continuing or monitoring of his maladministration, and we can continue to encourage lower level people in his Administration to come forward?

___ When will it sink into the US government’s consciousness that, with 4 impeachments, this will widen the net, and make more US government officials susceptible to not being able to enjoy a pardon as the activity would be easily connected with the impeachment activity?

___ If the US government is not repeated to engage in the above, is the US government communication that it needs a new system of rules in a New Constitution to better guide it?

___ If the US government is not willing to engage in multiple impeachments, is it arguing that it needs outside assistance from international war crimes prosecutors?

___ Is the resistance of the US government officials to support multiple impeachments linked with their fear they may be implicated for not having acted sooner to prevent war crimes?

__ Are Members of Congress unwilling to consider 4 impeachments because this might increase their chances they are positively connected with 5 SUC 3331 violations, and implicated in an alleged conspiracy not to prevent war crimes, when they had the power, duty, and authority to review Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports related to those alleged Geneva violations, war crimes, prisoners abuses, and decisions by the President and Attorney General not to honor the laws of war?

___ Are members of congress reluctant to support an effective Presidential Impeachment Program with 4 impeachments because they actually fear being implicated for war crimes and lawfully being sentenced to death by hanging?

___ why is the US government not willing to share information related to criminal activity with the State Attorney Generals for purposes of supporting prosecutions against the President, Members of Congress, and US Government staff counsel?

___ What is the date that the US government plans to work with the State Attorney Generals to successfully exchange information, and ensure the US Constitution is protected?

__ When will the US government share information with the German war crimes prosecutors related to illegal US government activity, and violations of the law by Members of Congress, DoJ Staff counsel, and other Executive Branch personnel related to the alleged conspiracy not to prevent war crimes despite their power and 5 USC 3331 obligation to prevent international war crimes?