Unacceptably Raising the Bar on Impeachable Offenses

Future Presidents and their poodles argue, "Hay, you didn't impeach Bush for illegal warfare, how dare you impeach me for maladmnistration."

* * *



Once the DNC says, "We will not impeach for Bush's scope of misconduct and alleged criminal activity," they're communicating something very important: All lesser abuses of power are not impeachable.

The alleged DNC malfeasance on these presidential crimes would, in effect, raise the bar on what is or is not impeachable. That is not acceptable.

* * *

The GOP-DNC are collectively communicating they are not fit for leadership in the US government. They are making excuses to do nothing, and refuse to enforce the law. We the People do not have to accept inaction. New leaders are available outside the GOP and DNC.

It is speculative that they "might" do something; the track record, in light of the alleged malfeasance in re Title 28 and Title 50 letters is certain.

The Orwellian double speak is stunnding. The DNC, as a minority party and ranking membership on the committees, implicitly says through their inaction, "We took no action when we have the option as ranking members; but we want you to believe our promise of inaction is really action," are not sending a signal that they will do all they can. [Other statutes ] The GOP and DNC might as well have taken lead roles in Orwell's 1984, in the final scene there was no visible differnce between the GOP farmer and the DNC animals -- both engaging in the same abuses.

It is incorrect to say the DNC might do something once they find information; they've already been given the infromation, as ranking members on the committees, and have no credible explanation for the alleged malfeasance on the Title 28 and Title 50 issues. They have already had the powe and chance to do something on these Title 28 and Title 50 issues, and have chosen to do nothing.

It is incorrect to say, "The voters have spoken, and there will be change." Despite the Nov 2006 election, the President has not changed: He's sticking with the same failed policies in Iraq, calling them somthing else, then targeting the DNC for failing to cooperate on what is illegal. Rather than the DNC forcefully saying, "The game is over, we're not appropriating funds for illegal things," the DNC is coweing in the corner like a whipped dog, "Oh, if we dare show our teeth, we might not get into the White House in 2008."

Indeed, if you fail to show your teeth, you don't deserve to get anywhere near the White House. Another party, besides the lazy, contemptible alleged war criminals in the DNC-GOP parties belong in a position of leadership.

The DNC is not changing, but making excusdres. They're still rubber stamping appropriations.

It's meaningls tto to have hearings or claim, "Oh, we have subpoena power," when POTS can override the COngressional subpoenas with a pardon. However, Congress could override the pardon if the proceedings were related to impeachment.

* * *

___ What's the excuse for Congress not taking action on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports when they had the chance?

___ The DNC didn' fully assert their powe rwhen they had the chance in re TItle 28 and Title 50; why should we believe that they'll "fully assert their oath" on the Appropriations, and end funding for illegal warfare?