Rethiking The Assumptions Behind Inaction on Impeachment

Pelosi, Conyers May Have Six [ 6 ] Years To Impeach Bush

Ref [ Carole J Gilbert on April 6, 2007 - 12:49pm. ] If the media wants to joke around about the 22nd Amendment on April Fools day, call them on their bluff.

Let's start a public debate over whether the PResident should or should not be imepached in 2007. There is no reason to delay what may be difficult. There is no prospect the President will be gone from the political stage unless Congress pushes him. This President has overstayed his useful performance.

It is reckless to argue that when the President choose to extent his tenure, We the People shall be forced to endure another act. This reckless, abuse of power, and Member of Congress refusal to act against these war crimes has gone on too long.

We the People may write a new play: Draft a New Constitution. Please begin discussing with your friends on a New Government that will defend this Constitution, assert the rule of law, and enforce the Supreme Law against all. This reckless government has failed.

This President wished this.

* * *

Carole well articulated an important point: The President and Vice President have Presidential Ambitions after 2008.

Ref Whether the Supreme Court impermissibly meddled in a State issue; or whether it decided incorrectly is a separate matter.

Nowhere in the Supreme Court opinion did the court deny that the President had been elected the Electoral College. Whether the Supreme Court ruling interfered with the Electoral College is a secondary issue.

Bush was elected in 2000 by the electoral college. It is meaningless for the President to pretend that the Supreme Court interference with the Florida Vote Count was permissible; or that the GOP action to suppress the Florida vote was lawful.

The President cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim success in the Electoral College based on fraud; but then pretend that electoral college vote did not occur. It is a secondary matter whether staff counsel working for the President and GOP corruptly persuaded Floridians to vote or not vote.

* * *

The argument that it is 2007, and Bush will be "gone" in 2009 when he "quietly leaves office" is not valid.

If we accept the premise as true -- that the President may hope to strike down the 22 Amendment or argue it does not apply -- then the argument for or against impeachment has no miert when looking only at the issue of hwheter the President will or will not be in office for another "few more months."

* * *

Let's take the possibly that the President, however he might say the Constitution does or does not apply -- might seek a third term in office.

1. One argument is that the President was not elected to office.

Wrong. The electoral college elected him.

2. Another argument is that the President was appointed.

This may be true, but does not mean that the electoral college did not vote. It did.

* * *

I appreciate the fact that the President and Vice President may wish to presume they will be elibilge for a third term in office. They are not. Once the electoral college has elected them as President and Vice President, it doesn't matter how the Electoral College voted, or what role the Supreme Court played.

It is a separate issue whether the Supreme Court interfered with the election; or stopped a vote that would have gone the other way.

* * *

Let's presume the President is serious about asserting he is eligible for a third term. Members of Congress cannot sit idly expecting Americans to put up with two more years of this President, plus the prospect of four more.

The argument against impeachment was the President was going to go away. If he's proposing to run, he's not going away; and proposing to stay.

Accept the Vice President's asserted point as valid. No one can claim this President is going to be gone by 2009; or that there is no time to do antying between 2007 and 2009.

Rather, the issue is: What will this Congress do between 2007 and 2013, when this President might be still President.

* * *

I do not want to hear the non-sense that there is "no time" or that the President and country "cannot afford" the distraction of impeachment.

Congress appears to be rolling over as an excuse to do nothing. That is a circular argument.

When the Vice President dares to pretend that the electoral college did not vote him into office -- rightly or wrongly is a separate matter -- then Americans are being asked to digest more legal non-sense.

This Congers needs to be open in 2007 to the possibly that, unless this President and Vice President are impeached in 2007, the President and Vice President may be with this Congress until 2013.

* * *

Congress knows what the Vice President supposedly said. Any argument that there is "no time" or "other more important" things to do are dubious.

This President claims he has "important" things to do, yet he uses his staff counsel to violate the law, usurp power, and implement war crimes.

This President has time to waste on trivial, illegal, and uncostuitnaol matters. There is no merit to any argument that this President would be "distracted" by impeachment. That's meaningless. The Consttion hasn't distracted him.

* * *

Preferences

I would prefer a discussion of impeachment:

___ Why is the DNC leadership arguing there are "only two more years" left, yet the President and Vice President -- apparently -- have a different tview on the 22nd Amendment?

___ Does the DNC leadership plan to ignore this President's war crimes in the off chance that he "might" be out of office by 2009?'

___ Why should Americans, with these problems, be forced to endure one more day of this tyrants abuse of power; yet the Congress will not act now?

___ If the DNC -- that has the power to impeach, but refuses for war crimes -- does not act against the GOP, why would anyone believe the DNC leadership will effectively challenge a DNC President complicit with war crimes?

___ Who is arguing that inaction on war crimes is civilized or something any American should be proud of being associated with?

* * * ?

Nuremberg clearly established that a nation whose leaders commit war crimes, but are not impeached, are not civilized.

* * *

Summary

I reject any assertion that the President will be gone by 2009. He may be. However, when the Vice President -- joking or not -- pretends that there might be a possibly that he and the President could be on the stage until 2013, then it is time for the Congress to call him on his bluff.

A. The President must be planning to run for office, obviously something that is a distraction. The President has chosen to pretend that he has "more important" things to do -- as an argument against the "distraction" of impeachment -- yet, this President pretends that he is going to run for office. He could use the final months in office to accomplish something, not make frivolous arguments that the Electoral College did or didn't do something.

B. When the Executive Branch pretends that there might be an option for this President to be elected a third time by the Electoral College, then this Congress is deluding itself to believe that this President is going to quietly go away. There are people inside the GOP who are actively working for ways to abuse power, violate the law, extent this President's control of power, usurp power, and extend his life on the political stage. When this President works to do what is not legal, Congress needs to reciprocate now and do what is lawful: Impeach.

C. Any assertion that there is "not enough time" to impeach means there is "no tenough time" for this Congress to claim it is a legitimate, civilized body. This refusal to act in light of Nuremberg is evidence for war crimes prosecutors to prosecute all Members of Congress for recklessness, and refusal to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

D. This President "has time" to create non-sense legal arguments to pretend that the electoral college did or didn't do something in 2000. The least this Congress could do is consider those legal arguments as a fundamental basis to question the assumtpions for doing nothing about this President. If there is going to be a backlash against anyone, it will be against those who refuse to do what they souled; and against those who do what they should not.

E. Any assertion that the DNC action against the President would backlash against the DNC are not matched by GOP efforts to do exactly what the DNC supposedly would suffer: Moving to impeach. Follow closely: If the "threat of a backlash against the DNC" were real, then the GOP should be doing things to facilitate this backlash, and push for impeachment. But the GOP is doing the opposite, pushing to have the 2000 electoral college vote to be null and void; and pretend that Bush was only elected once. When the GOP does not exploit the so-called "inevitable backlash against the DNC" -- and push for impeachment, that would supposedly bring a backlash against the DNC -- but it moves in the opposite direction, the GOP cannot credibly argue that DNC action to assert their oath is a problem. The error is for the GOP to pretend there is a risk of a backlash, but for the GOP to fail to explain why they are not exploiting this possibility. This is a credibility issue for the GOP. Nobody in the DNC can credibly believe that the backlash against the DNC is real when the GOP refuses to push for the "supposed thing" that will cause this backlash -- impeachment -- but is doing the opposite: Pushing to have this President's tenure expanded into 2013.

* * *

Congress needs to stop with the excuses over impeachment, get on with the job, and confront the President who has already confronted the Constitution.

It should not be this hard for the Congress to do what it should. Nuremberg reminds us that when leaders refuse to impeach war criminals they cannot be called civilized. They are barbarians subject to prosecution.