Democrats line up lawyers

[Totallybushed]

Here's an interesting article I stumbled across. I hope it's true, and I hope it does some good. I've always thought that 2000, 2002, & 2004 were stolen. But if nothing happens this time, I'm giving up on the "stolenm election" paradigm, because it obviously won't have worked. Doesn't matter if it is true or not.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/09/26/20060926-D5-00.html

[skids]

1. Well, One can hope...

...but it isn't like they didn't say they were doing this in 2004 as well.

Hopefully it has sunk deeper into our collective skulls that not only do we need lawyers on retainer, they have to be issue-aware and proactive.

[Totallybushed]

3. I believe

that the elections were stolen. In 2000, we were taken by surprise, but in 2002 and 2004 we were fore-warned. And nothing happened. No challenges, nothing. No evidence was ever brought to court, and the evidence presented, while plausible enough to the politically informed, did not rise to the level that would affect the bone-headed sheeple.

However. I see this, and I have to think. Four times. Four elections. The leadership is telling us they will be ready this time. If they don't get something this time there are only two possible conclusions. One, we were wrong, the voters really are against us. I'm not willing to accept that. Two, the Democratic leadeship is on the neo-con payroll. I don't want to accept that either. But I don't see any other alternatives.

But what I'm really saying is this: If we don't win, and if no prosecutions for election fraud are forthcoming, then we need to re-evaluate our strategy. We aren't winnnig with this, and we will have lost our last chance to impeach George Bush.

Of course, maybe we will win. I see a lot of optimism on this board. That's good. I'm a pessimist by nature myself. That way, I am never disappointed, and often pleasantly surprised. I'm gald other people can be different, though.

[xchrom]

2. i can't get james baker out of my head.

i would feel more comfortable if the dems had been more aggressive at the top -- proclaiming publicly that there had been underhanded dealings going on.

the repulick party is and will be well equiped for any objections or legal challenges -- and that's where experience could come in handy.

i HOPE the evidence that conyers has collected and the work of independent concerned others -- some here at du -- motivate powerful dems to fight hammer and tong.

[wakeme2008]

6. I can not get Rep Peter King out of my mind

In the summer of 2003, Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.) was interviewed by Alexandra Pelosi at a barbecue on the White House lawn for her HBO documentary Diary of a Political Tourist. It's already over. The election's over. We won,” King exulted more than a year before the election. When asked by Pelosi—the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—how he knew that Bush would win, he answered, “It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.”

[pat_k]

4. Truth Matters

However long it takes, until the nation confronts, and comes to terms with the stolen Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 (e.g., by Impeaching -- even posthumously -- Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner, and Kennedy for their treasonous Bush v. Gore edit)

Every time we attempt to "just move forward from here" and fail to go after the people who commit crimes against our constitutional democracy, we pay a higher and higher price.

It may be difficult to imagine a higher price than we are paying now, but if we keep appeasing and "moving on" with a "positive agenda" we will find out how high the price can go. (NO agenda is "positive" if it does not include accusing the the War Criminals and traitors, bringing them to judgement, and punishing them.)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html">Hey Democrats, Truth Matters, by Robert Parry

[Totallybushed]

7. You can't impeach posthumously.

If we don't win this election, the opportunity to impeach GWB passes forever. SC justices are another matter. But you can't do it for treason. Treason is defined by the Constitution, and does not include bone-headed, even wrong, decisions.

I have a question, though, and I waver in my answer. I wonder if other folk do. Would it be better to get rid of them today, with no further punishment, no judgment or condemnation, full pension, etc, but out of power? Or would it be better to keep after them on the chance that one day the official record would be clear what evil scum they were, with impeachment, prison, humiliation?

In other words, make the world better immediately, or hang on in the hope of one day seeing justice? I admit to being torn, but I would have to come down in the "positive" direction rather than holding out for "revenge". I think.

What about you? Assume that you can't have both and that the administration will leave office in 2008.

[pat_k]

9. Of course we can.

If you think it is not possible under "the law" then you have a fascist view of the law, where appeals to legal technicality and complexity trump reality and the will of the people.

We the People surrendered none of our sovereignty to the institutions we established in our Constitution. We ARE the law. Congress is Our Voice. The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. The House can bring articles of Impeachment for the traitorous actions of a Supreme Court Justice (or of any high official in the Executive Branch or Judiciary), and call on the Senate to pass judgment, even decades later if We the People demand it.

[Totallybushed]

14. I don't think

that my view is the fascist one. That's why there are Constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. Which is what you are advocating. These are the tools of tyrants not progressives.

You are not advocating "democracy" but "mobocracy". Even Hitler would have gotten due process if he had been captured, and so should the evil Bush regime.

[pat_k]

21. My statement was intended as an observation and a warning, not an accusati

Perhaps you have not been infected, but a fascist view of the law has infected American discourse, Particularly among the most highly-educated.

We have come to view the branches of government as alien entities, rather than what they are: institutions we established to ensure that the formulation, application, and execution of our laws results in actions that are the best reflection of our collective will that can be achieved in an imperfect world.

Instead of standing up and saying "There is something wrong here. This makes no sense." we submit to Un-American and Un-Constitutional edicts like Bush v. Gore, shrug, and say "the law is the law." Over and over again, we see "The Law" (or "very complex law") invoked to trump our manifest will.

Even the notion that the three branches of Government share power equally is part of the propaganda. When we gave Congress, and Congress alone, the power to Impeach civil officials in the other branches, we gave "the voice of the people" significantly more power than the other branches. (And the only way a member of the House or Senate can be removed is through an internal process of expulsion (Senate) or resolution (House)).

Government is a system that is driven by individual action. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy we must examine and pass judgment on the actions of our officials. Our responsibility to judge does not end when an official's term of office ends.

Impeachment->Trial->Verdict->Sentence are distinct steps in the process that most people lump together under the term "Impeachment." Legalistic terms may be used, but impeachment by the House and "trial" in the Senate are political, not judicial, processes.

The Senate does not "pass sentence." They are only charged with rendering a verdict. Removal from office is the automatic "sentence" under the Constitution for an office holder when a guilty verdict is returned by the Senate.

But, the ability to carry out the "sentence" is not a prerequiste for impeachment. We put nothing our Constitution that would bar us from impeaching a former civil officer for treasonous acts committed under the authority of the office they held.

The bill of attender clause does not apply because exercising their power to Impeach in no way infringes on the judiciary.

As cited in the http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm">TechLaw glossary

The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

The ex post facto clause doesn't apply either. There is nothing retroactive about passing judgment on an office holder's conduct, whether or not they are in office. A term of office does not constitute a statute of limitations. The standards by which the actions are judged don't change with the offenders status (in office or not, living or not). Whether it be the 109th or the 129th Congress, each member must make a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law. They must render a verdict that fulfills their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Removal from office is one type of damage control achieved through impeachment (stop the violations by removing the violator), but it is not the only type.

Through Impeachment, we expose and say "NO MORE" to abuses of power and subversion our fundamental principles. If the violator has left office (or left the land of the living), the "sentence" (removal from office) cannot be imposed, but we can still use the other steps of the process to reassert our Constitutional principles.

Five members of the Supreme Court issued a criminal edict that put the massive power of the American Presidency into the hands of a man we did not elect. The destructive power of that action cannot be defused until we confront the truth as a nation. Impeachment is the way to do it.

Since it is a political process, all that is required is the political will.

[Totallybushed]

22. Sorry, but that's

a load of crap.

If they broke the law, judicial remedies exist. If Congress wants to disassociate itself from there are several methods available to it. For example, it could pass a resolution condemning th Bush administration and apologizing for its actions.

As impeachment is a political process there has to be a political will to carry it out. Once & is gone from office, this will diminish. Maybe not here on DU, but DU posters are numerically an insignificant factor.

Look opposition to the Vietnam War was fueled largely by people not wanting to be drafted. There were huge demonstrations. For the Iraq War, there is no draft. Demonstrations are laughable compared to what was seen in the 60s. Yes, most people oppose the war, but they are not being called upon to make sacrifices, so their attitude is not overly passionate about it.

When * is gone, most people will want to move on with their lives. There will be a few on the left that want some historical satisfaction, and a few on the right that will want to deny it to them. The voters will, IMO, not side with the troublemakers.

I leave you as an example what happened to the Republicans after the impeachment of Mr. Clinton.

Get out the vote this election or leave the judgment of * to the courts or to history is my opinion, and the action that I intend to take.

[pat_k]

23. The subject I am addressing is the treasonous Bush v. Gore edict. . .

. . .and the need to acknowledge the truth as a nation.

I responded to your assertion that we are prohibited from posthumous impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. You responded with the statement that the case presented is "a load of crap," but you did not support that statement by challenging any part of that case.

You then shifted the topic with suggestions of how we might deal with reign of the Bush syndicate. That's all well and good. We must impeach Bush and Cheney for terrorizing the nation into a war of aggression they were hell-bent on waging; for turning Americans into torturers; for their repeated claims to, and exercise of, Un-Constitutional power. We can and should fight to muster the political will to declare the Bush reign null and void and strike down every act Bush signed and every executive order he issued. But these fights are separate from the fight to confront the truth about the treasonous act that installed him and made his reign illegitimate.

Acting to repair the damage inflicted by the Bush reign can only be grounded in honesty if the nation acknowledges the truth about the origins of that rule -- that the edict that installed him put our constitution in breach and set the nation on the path of fascism.

To return to the subject at hand. We collectively come to terms with the truth about the origin of the Bush reign when the nation, through "the voice of the people" on Capitol Hill, accuses and passes judgment on the five who, by fiat, installed him.

If Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy are still on the court, principle demands their removal. Their commitment to fascism is intolerable in a true America. You assert that "If they broke the law, judicial remedies exist." That assertion is incorrect. There is no constitutional judicial process by which the removal of a Supreme Court justice can be accomplished.

Because their treasonous Bush v. Gore edict required all five to commit treason, all five who issued it should be named in the articles of impeachment handed to the Senate.

Predictions of ultimate success or failure have absolutely nothing to do with committing to take up a fight when principle demands it.

As long as the nation moves forward in denial of the truth, we will continue to suffer the destructive effects of the festering wound inflicted by theft of the Presidential election of 2000.

I for one, and countless others, are committed to fighting to end the denial. Whether it takes a year or decades, whether or not any member of the court who issued the Bush v. Gore edict remains on our highest court, the principle that government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed -- the single moral tenet on which the constitution, and therefore the nation, rests -- demands that we fight for truth.

In your original post, you expressed a willingness to give up on exposing the theft of the elections of 2000 and 2004.

I was prompted to post my response because truth matters. The fight to expose the truth should never be abandoned because we have doubts that we can win.

When the truth we are fighting to expose involves the single moral tenet on which our nation rests, the fight is imperative if we are to preserve a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Declarations that we will fail are not grounded in reality. No human is omniscient. The course of events cannot be known until those events are behind us. At each juncture, the possibilities are endless.

It will probably be easier to muster the political will as long as at least one of the felonious five remains on the court. No matter how difficult it may become after they have retired, we would not be released from fighting if we want redeem the nation and reclaim constitutional principle.

Fortunately for us, truth has a power of its own. When people learn the truth, they rarely "unlearn" it. The process is one way. In reality, the power of the truth makes our efforts to reveal it more likely to ultimately succeed than fail.

[Totallybushed]

26. The judicial decision that

gave Bush the Presidency was a)wrong, B) poorly decided, c)unwise, and maybe even d)criminal. That's for a court to decide.

What it was not is "treasonous". Treason is exactly defined in the Constitution, and rendering a verdict in a case does not fall within the confines of that definition.

Judicial remedies do exist. Bring them up on corruption charges. If convicted, they will be impeached, or will resign. Give me one instance of an impeachment proceeding that was brought against an official that was not longer in office. Just one.

As long as the left is not only willing, but eager, to brood against old wrongs, rather than move forward with a progressive agenda, it will be mired in electoral defeat. Being against Bush, and what decent person isn't, is not enough.

I'm not saying give up on exposing the truth about these matters. Far from it. What I'm saying is we need to decide on what the goal is, and pursue it single-mindedly. We need to bring these men to justice, but it must be done in accordance with the law, not the "will of the people". That is fickle and changes with every dawning. One day it may be us who are on the short end of that stick. Remember "impeach Earl Warren"? They weren't able to pull it off, not because he was right, but because most Americans were on his side. But in the future that may not be the case.

Look. I'm not judging your attempts. But I do think you are living in a totally alternate fantasy universe if you think that Bush, or any of the justices, will ever be impeached UNLESS WE WIN THIS ELECTION.

[pat_k]

30. Point-by-point

". . . That's for a court to decide."

Why? Why not Congress?

"Judicial remedies do exist. Bring them up on corruption charges. If convicted, they will be impeached, or will resign."

Please describe the specific charges on which you would indict. (Corruption is too vague for me to understand what you are thinking of.)

If there are applicable charges, who would you name as the aggrieved party? (I am very interested in hearing your theory, particularly if it is something citizens can initiate.)

If there is a judicial indictment that could be brought, why would you bother seeking to accuse through judicial indictment when articles of impeachment can accomplish the goal of leveling the accusation? As long as any remain on the court, removal is the top priority, which would necessitate impeachment anyway (presuming they don't resign first).

Whether or not you can identify black letter law, are you under the impression that members of the Congress are limited to the letter of the law in formulating articles of impeachment or passing judgment?

Impeachable offenses are defined and judged on the intent of the law, not the letter. Impeachable offiense are in, in reality, anything Congress says they are. (We empowered no other body to overturn them.)

If impeachable offenses were to be judged on the letter of the law, we would have vested the power to impeach in the judiciary.

We did not. We vested the power in congress.

The laws we have enacted are intended to SERVE our will, not thwart it.

We vested the power to impeach in Congress to ensure that our government officials do not subvert the intent of the law and abuse the power we allocate to them, whether or not they have violated the letter of the law.

"What it was not is "treasonous". Treason is exactly defined in the Constitution, and rendering a verdict in a case does not fall within the confines of that definition."

For your consideration (from http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call it Treason):

. ..there are two types of crimes: malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, more popularly called "civil offenses" or "quasi crimes," such as selling liquor after a specified time of day, hunting during the off-season, gambling, etc.; and malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes. The latter, such as robbery, rape, murder and arson, are the only true crimes. Without exception, they all involve morally reprehensible conduct. Even if there were no law prohibiting such conduct, one would know (as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime) it is wrong, often evil. Although the victim of most true crimes is an individual (for example, a person robbed or raped), such crimes are considered to be "wrongs against society." This is why the plaintiff in all felony criminal prosecutions is either the state (People of the State of California v. _______) or the federal government (United States of America v. _______).

No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. . .

In a very real way, the five justices levied war against the United States, but even if you reject that their actions meet the definition of treason under Article III, the label treason applies to their action. The word treason is defined as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign." In the United States, it is the collective will of the people that is sovereign. In usurping that will, the feloneous five committed treason.

"As long as the left is not only willing, but eager, to brood against old wrongs, rather than move forward with a progressive agenda"

What "positive agenda" can we move forward on under rule by signing statement?

If we allow those "old wrongs" to stand, what would stop the existing crop (or a new one) of fascist Justices from once against stopping states from resolving disputes and declaring a candidate the "winner" when more voters went to the polls to vote for more of the other guy's (or gal's) electors?

An election is not a contest -- it is a survey -- an effort to measure an objective reality.

While an election in a democracy may well have many of the trappings of a contest or competition, its purpose is quite different. That purpose is to poll the electorate and determine an accurate measure of their choice for a representative or magistrate. Like the census, it is intended to measure an objective reality. A contest is a more limited endeavor. And while campaigns are certainly treated by the media as sporting events, their purpose is simply communication to the only real stakeholders in the process, the voters whose intent an election is simply one method to gauge.

While it may be impracticable, there's no reason why we couldn't conduct our elections by hiring (bonded) agents to canvass the voters rather than requiring attendance at a "polling" place.

"We need to bring these men to justice, but it must be done in accordance with the law, not the "will of the people". "

In a true America, our collective will -- the "will of the people -- IS THE LAW.

We surrendered NONE of our collective sovereignty to the institutions, the "rules," and the principles we established in our Constitution.

As long as our representatives in Congress are lawfully elected (and that is currently in doubt), it is up to us to make our will known, and to demand that they are responsive to us. The extent to which the laws and resolutions they pass are express of our collective will is directly related to the number and diversity of those who participate.

The design of our constitution anticipated the need balance conflicting interests. When the laws we pass to address specific problems (or an interpretation of those laws) conflict with each other, or with the tenets of our Constitution, we look to the judiciary to resolve these conflicts in a manner that ensures that the application of the law is the best reflection of our will that can be achieved in an imperfect world. As we strive for a more perfect union it is the work of the Supreme Court to step in and judge whether applicable law and prior decisions are consistent with our guiding principles.

When the process fails, and the actions of our civil officials subvert our will, We the People reassert our will though impeachment and removal of those officials.

". . .That is fickle and changes with every dawning. One day it may be us who are on the short end of that stick. Remember "impeach Earl Warren"? They weren't able to pull it off, not because he was right, but because most Americans were on his side. But in the future that may not be the case."

I'm not following your point. We shouldn't make use our of constitutional processes for re-asserting our will because there are times that those processes are hijaaked by a fascist faction?

Sure, as we strive to create a more perfect union, we foul up. At times, a faction grabs power and asserts its will as the rest of are looking the other way. Until our current crisis, citizens have done a pretty good job of beating back such fascist efforts (took us awhile on some occasions).

When the number and diversity of the people who are involved increases, it may take longer to balance the conflicting interests and find solutions to the problems we face in a way that serves the common good (while addressing the needs of this or that cohort). At any given point in the process, one set of factions or another may be "winning."

But, the ups and downs as we resolve the conflicting interests of the various factions (whatever they label themselves) in and of themselves don't threaten the moral principles we have set forth in the design of these United States.

People fall into to two camps. Either they work to engage more people (or sit it out, satisfied with what those who are engaged are doing), and trust the outcome when our institutions are operating as we designed, or they don't trust, they seek to limit participation, and to impose their own will "for the good of the people." It is the tension between these fascist and anti-fascists forces we must be most vigilent about:

• Anti-Fascists
  Those who believe in Democracy. And, as Clinton put it in the Wallace interview "Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power."


• Fascists
  Those who believe their faction has some inherent to impose their will on the rest of us. Whether you label it monarchy, aristocracy, or theocracy, it is all fascism.)

Right now, too many of us have surrendered our sovereignty and have allowed a fascist faction to successfully corrupt the institutions though which we express our will in ways that usurp our will.

We are incapable of representing our interests and "moving forward with a progressive agenda" when the institutions through which we express our will have been hijacked.

As Arianna put it "You don't worry about rearranging the furniture when you house is burning."

Well, our "house" has been nuked by a fascist faction. Right now, we have representatives who are complicit with the fascist by carrying on, business as usual, and thus supporting the pretense that the United States is still operating under our common contract -- the Constitution of the United States.

The contract is in breach.

We must re-assert the terms. We provided mechanisms for doing so in the contract itself. Impeachment is the provision to use when we are in a "state of emergency" as is the case right now.

. . .That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,

". . .if you think that Bush, or any of the justices, will ever be impeached UNLESS WE WIN THIS ELECTION.

Running on the impeachment of Bush and Cneney is not just the right thing to do. It is the winning thing to do. The biggest problem the dems have is their image as wimps. Standing up and fulfilling their oath by demanding impeachment demonstrates the kind of strength and principle.

If the keep their silence, as it appears they are hell-bent on doing, they fail to nationalize the election and make it all about Bush (something the repubs are terrified of). They don't just look weak, they look like hypocrites if they win, and then stand up for impeachment when it is "safe."

Fighting on principle only when it is "safe" to do so is contemptable.

[Totallybushed]

34. we are totally

arguing in circles. If a crime was committed, prosecute it. If not, what basis do we have for impeachment? It's political, you say? OK, then: win a fucking election!! Can't do that for 10 or twenty years so you'll impeach dead men then? OK. Go for it. Good luck. But why bother? No one will care.

I'm trying to win NOW. If we win, then we can bring up. Now. If you think it is good strategy and tactics, well, that's the way you see it. I've got no problem with that. I don't, but men of good will can disagree about it, IMO.

An election is not a contest -- it is a survey -- an effort to measure an objective reality. ROFLMFAO. ARE YOU CRAZY! Of course it's a contest and there's a winner and a loser. For example, Gore and Kerry lost the last two contests. Sure they got more votes than Bush. But they were not counted. So, and I gag as I say this, it's PRESIDENT Bush, Mr. Gore, and Senator Kerry. There is not fairy godmother that is going to come down and fix the elections for us. No fairy judge is going to bang his magic gavel and change the outcome of an election, either. UNLESS WE GET SOLID EVIDENCE OF CHEATING SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME.

Intimidation of minority voters? Maybe somebody will go to jail later, but their votes, that they didn't cast, will not be added to the Dem column the next day. Same for long lines because there were too few voting booths. Except nobody will go to jail for that.

Nor did the justices violate a law. They decided a case. Did you know that justices are immune from prosecution and civil suits for decisions they make on the bench?? Actual corruption would have to be proven.

Whether or not you can identify black letter law, are you under the impression that members of the Congress are limited to the letter of the law in formulating articles of impeachment or passing judgment?

Impeachable offenses are defined and judged on the intent of the law, not the letter. Impeachable offense are in, in reality, anything Congress says they are. (We empowered no other body to overturn them.)

OK, I can agree with that. They don't have the courage, though.

The justices will never be impeached, never. Even if Dems take control of the House. Democrats have depended on the judiciary for far too long to be willing to set such a precedent. Just like * will never go to the Hague. No US President would ever be willing to subject himself and his office to foreign powers by setting such a precedent.

Look. Let me try again. I can totally understand your sentiments. If this is what it takes for your to keep your sanity in this unjust world, then do what you have to do. But you will never succeed, and you are using resources that could be spent in a manner that would better accomplish your goals.

Tell me, would you prefer Bush out now, this minute, but with no other punishment or humiliation at all, sparing the world over TWO MORE YEARS of his evil incompetence and greed? Or would you prefer to take a CHANCE for the total historical and legal justification of your position sometime in the future, including posthumous impeachment, if the chance pans out??

Yes, I know the first has no chance of occurring, but we can limit the damage in November. So, assuming that you can't have both, which one would you rather have? I go for door #1, myself.

[pat_k]

36. What are you winning under rule by signing statement?

[Totallybushed]

39. I'm not sure

how this is a response to my post??

[pat_k]

40. You said, "I'm trying to win NOW". . .

. . .I'm wondering what they are winning if Democratic leaders and Democratic candidates remain hell-bent on keeping the truth about this administration under their hats, and keep assuring the public "Don't worry, we won't impeach anybody."

I'm wondering what they are winning under rule by signing statement, when anything they actually pass is nulified via signing statement. When the fascists in the executive branch don't enforce laws already on the books. When they violate our laws and our most cherished principles and the "opposition" keeps their mouths shut, and refuses to accuse them because "they wan't to win."

I'm just wondering what they are winning.

[Totallybushed]

41. Well, it's not like

the information about the Bush crimes is not out there. It is, and it's widespread, and Democratic leaders have been outspoken about it. From time to time. For some reason it's not resonating with the public to the extent that we would like.

That's why I made my original statement that the pradigm was not working.

They're not winnning anything. Until they do. While the bushbots are in power, we don't get to advance our agenda. When we are in power, they won't get to advance theirs. That's why you have to win elections. All else is secondary.

[pat_k]

48. As long as our leaders are in denial, the nation remains in denial

And we have only ONE member of the Senate who has been "outspoken" about anything -- Feingold. (And even he has been stone, cold, silent on the stolen elections of 2000, 2004)

Either our leaders must stand up and tell the truth, and be willing to do what that truth demands of them (Impeaching Bush and Cheney being Job One), or keep silent and appease the fascists and election thieves.

There is no middle ground. There is no fence to sit on here. No way to finesse it.

As long as they tip-toe around, pretending to "condemn" the fascists, but then assure the public "But, Hey, don't worry, we have NO INTENTION of Impeaching anybody!!" they just sound like morally-confused, mealy-mouthed, morons.

And morally-confused, mealy-mouthed, morons don't "resonate" with anyone. In fact, they are held in contempt for hypocrisy and cowardice.

Pretending they can "fix" the current state of emergency by sitting tight, keeping their mouths shut, and "simply win elections," business as usual, is appeasement, pure and simple.

Dems must Tell the Truth AND Win Elections. Dems will win a heck of a lot more of them if they tell the truth.

Which brings me back to the original point, and the point I return to over, and over, and over again.

Truth Matters.

Not Half-Truths.
Not empty "Truth" you refuse to act on.
Tell the Truth. Do what it demands of you.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[Totallybushed]

27. Try this

Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPEACH

There are other difinitions for "impeachment". Perhaps you mean one of them. But the HR is not going to impeach an official that is out of office. I don't think they can, and if you have information to the contrary, share it with me, please.

Perhaps this is challenge enough??

[pat_k]

31. I neglected to address.. . . . (on edit, fixed garbled bits)

. . .the following in my above replay:

"Give me one instance of an impeachment proceeding that was brought against an official that was not longer in office. Just one."

Don't need to. There are no precedents if there are no "first times."

There is no problem with being the first instance.

"There are other difinitions for "impeachment". Perhaps you mean one of them. "

I believe I described the process of Impeachment in sufficient detail, and in a way that is consistent with the definition you provide. I see nothing in that definition that precludes application to someone who has left office. The definition states tht the goal is "removal from office." That is certainly one purpose, but as I described, it is not the only purpose.

Whether in or out of office, you are bringing charges against someone for actions committed in their capacity as a "public official." That is, you are bringing charges against "a public official charged with misconduct in office."

"I don't think they can, and if you have information to the contrary, share it with me, please."

Post 21 makes the case.

"But the HR is not going to impeach an official that is out of office."

Why not?

The only prerequiste I am aware of is that enough of us demand it.

If it can be done, we must fight for it if we want to go forward on honest ground.

It can be done.

If you still think they can't do it, who would stop them? The judiciary has no authority in this regard. The executive has no authority in this regard.

[rinsd]

32. Its other words, its a complete pipe dream that won't happen.

"Through Impeachment, we expose and say "NO MORE" to abuses of power and subversion our fundamental principles."

More like through Impeachment we say No More to Democratic majorities for awhile.

[pat_k]

33. if people refrain from fighting and thus fulfill the self-fulfilling . . .

. . .prophesy that it will never happen, then it will never happen.

Outcomes are never assured until events are behind us. There are many stages, composed of innumerable actions. The possibilities are infinite.

To see the real possibilities before us, we must resist predictions of futility or doom.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would NEVER get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2004. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

It is time to stand up and fight the good fights. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must still act on principle. (There are always benefits on the road, no matter what the outcome.)

[rinsd]

45. You are talking about impeaching 5 SC judges

"To see the real possibilities before us, we must resist predictions of futility or doom."

Sounds like the world Bush lives in but I guess we're all entitled to our windmills.

[pat_k]

49. You can see every twist and turn in the future??

[rinsd]

53. You seem to think you are able to, why am I denied my chance?

[pat_k]

55. I have made no predictions of outcome.

I have only described the truth, and described what the truth calls on us to do.

I have made no predictions of outcome.

I have done the opposite.

I have said that outcome expectations are irrelevant to the decision to act when principle demands action.

Truth Matters

[rinsd]

60. okaaaayyyy.....,

:banghead:

[Totallybushed]

35. Unless we win this election, yes.

I wonder if people have considered that if a person IS impeached, but not convicted, that this constitutes a refutation of the impeachment charges? Just a thought.

sorry, I wish I could be more upbeat about the subject, but I'm beginning to see one reason the Repukes have been able to roll us like rugs. Too many Democrats are striving for goals which we do not currently possess the ability to achieve while neglecting those that we do.

Win Elections, the rest will follow.

[rinsd]

44. Win elections, enact liberal legislation

But impeaching Supreme Court Justices?

[Totallybushed]

46. That's not my idea.

I don't think it can be done. But other people think differently.

If it can be done, it won't be done without winning elections.

[pat_k]

51. We won't win enough elections if Democrats don't start speaking truth. . .

. . .and start being willing to take the actions that truth demands of them.

Like being willing to demand the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for terrorizing the nation into war with threats of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes, for turning Americans into Torturers, for rulling by signing statement.

Like being willing to demand impeachment of the five who handed down the treasonous edict that installed Bush in violation of the principle of consent -- the SOLE moral tenet on which this nation was founded.

Hard truths demand hard actions.

Choosing silence until you think it is 'safe" is cowardice and hypocrisy.

Winning elections in a fascist state is an empty victory.

[Totallybushed]

56. Wrong, stupid, &

unwise. Maybe criminal. BUT NOT TREASONOUS. It is this totally baseless tin-foil hat stuff that turns off the moderate and indipendent voter.

We've got plenty to hang them with. We don't need to make the "treason" charge. And it is a negative for us. IMHO.

[pat_k]

59. I've already addressed those points.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2530770#2533330

[pat_k]

50. . . .and watch as Bush nullifies your legislation with a signing statement

[rinsd]

52. Where do you get your scare tactics?

They are sooooo 2002.

Win elections, enact liberal legislation, look to capture executive branch in 2008. That is my focus.

You want to tilt windmills seeking to impeach 5 SC Judges have at it.

[pat_k]

54. If you want to win elections

. . . you should be pushing our so-called leaders to stop sounding like morally-confused, mealy-mouthed, morons and speak the truth . . . and be willing to do what truth demands of them.

And, if telling the truth is "scare tactics". . . What about terrorizing the nation into war with baseless threats of Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes?

[rinsd]

61. LOL...this is getting surreal.

"And, if telling the truth is "scare tactics"."

When someone continues to refer to their opinion as the truth, I realize that opinion is not worthy of respect.

[pat_k]

65. Sure is. Rule by signing statement, + national denial, = surreal

[pat_k]

66. Bush rules by signing statement. That is a fact.

They have turned Americans into torturers. Once again, fact.

They terrorized us into war with threats of "Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes." Another fact.

[rinsd]

67. Stop calling your conclusions facts

"They have turned Americans into torturers. Once again, fact."

We've been in the torture business for some time now. Does everyone forget the Church hearings?

"They terrorized us into war with threats of "Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes." Another fact."

Not a fact. A statement giving more gravity to one of dozens of erroneous claims by the administration in the march to war. I think the word you are looking for is factoid or fact-esque.

[pat_k]

69. What is your definiiton of "turning into"?

When somone who was not formerly a torturer is told torture (as they were by Rumsfeld's memo, and John Yoo's "opinion") -- and they do what they are told. That person has been "turned into" a torturer.

Perhaps you have a different term that describes the facts.

When the man occupyong the Office of the President nullifies law with a "signing statement" I call that "rule by signing statement."

Perhaps you have a different word that describes the facts.

[Totallybushed]

57. Well, int two

years he can't do that anymore.

But a new Republican president could. So we've got to win. That's the bottom line.

[pat_k]

58. I ask again, what have you won if

. . you let them get peacefully voted out, proving to the nation that they really must be AOK guys and gals. If they had been criminals, wouldn't the Democratic members of Congress have done something?

So, it must be AOK to nullify laws by signing statement.

It must be AOK to turn Americans into torturers.

It must be AOK to install a President by fiat.

[Totallybushed]

63. It proves that

Americans really can control their coountry. It saves thousands of innocent lives that would be lost in "the revolution". It's doable. Impeachment is not.

Let's turn the question around, what have you won if thye leave in 2006, 2008 and another Republican administration takes over?

[pat_k]

64. Who said a word about revolution?

The remedies to the state of emergency we face are provided for in our common contract, the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Totallybushed]

68. Exactly.

But they are not as you describe them.

As for revolution, well nobody said anything about it on this thread, but it has been said by others on DU.

[pat_k]

70. How are they "not as you described them?"

[Totallybushed]

71. Well, we

don't "impeach" dead men, for example.

[pat_k]

72. Why not?

[Totallybushed]

73. there's no precedent

for doing so. Name One, just one, time it's been done, and I'll shut up.

[madfloridian]

5. It is true. Some of us posted it, but it was called meaningless.

I just never bothered to do it again. Here's a link from the DNC on a search of lawyers and council. There may be more. I think they are getting very organized on this. It just does no good to post, as nothing is ever enough.

http://www.democrats.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=lawyers+council&x=12&y=13

[liberal N proud]

8. The Kerry campaign had lawyers all over the country in 2004

And they have a heavy concentration of them in Ohio in anticipation of problems, training people to work on election day to report problems and it didn't stop them.
There were lots of problems, too few machines, not enough ballots and all the reports about long lines and ballots being destroyed.

What happened after the election? Nearly all the lawyers packed their bags and went right back to were ever they came from. Not to hear from them again.
We can have all the lawyers in the country in line but if they don't do anything when there are problems, then it is useless.

[Totallybushed]

15. You speak truth,

but I believe if they had had legally acceptable evidence then we would be in the Kerry golden age right now.

[kansasblue]

10. come on and help.... www.velvetrevolution.us

VR Launches Election Protection Strike Force For The Mid-Term Elections

VelvetRevolution has launched an election protection strike force campaign for the mid-term elections this November. This campaign consists of three major components – legal, media and activists.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#091006

[Ganja Ninja]

11. The time to sue is before the elections not after.

Waiting until after the election to sue is stupid. You can't prove fraud and you can't prove there was none. That's why you have to sue before hand to show that the machines are not tamper proof and unreliable. Suing after the election only looks like sour grapes.

[Totallybushed]

16. If fraud was

committed, it should be provable. If it is not, then they don't have to prove it didn't occur. That's what the legal system will assume because that's the way it works. Just like OJ is a free man because, although he did do it, it wasn't proven to a jury to their satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt.

On edit: You're rigth though, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Best thing to do is prevent them from stealing the election

before it happens.

Figure out all the possibilities so you know what to expect.
Put in place a plan that prevents or makes it more difficult for the opposing party to implement their plan.

As for the attorneys... it doesn't help to have attorneys unless they know the election law.
In addition, there must be others that know enough election law besides the attorneys in each county so that they recognize that there has or might be a violation.

2 years ago cell phones still were not that prevalent. Now they are and many have picture capability as well as txt messaging. Our people in the streets should use their phones when they believe a violation has been committed. Illegal electioneering can be snapshot. Taking down opposing yard-signs can be snapshot. Challengers challenging voters can be snapshot. It doesn't become just someone's word without a possible witness but pictures of the event happening.

Where possible and necessary we should keep tabs on the locations of the opposing side. Their staff and volunteers that are operating the campaign.

[jackster]

12. yea well we heard the

very same thing in '04 and look how that turned out.

Unless liberals, dems, progressives, and just plain old-patriots get to the polls in record numbers, this one is gonna be stolen too.

good news - MA democratic turnout exceeded predictions last week - and nominated the candidate who spent the LEAST amount of money, but the MOST amount of time actually talking with and listening to the voters.

Grassroots, Netroots - whatever we call it, this is what is gonna win us the election - GOTV!

[FogerRox]

13. Heard that, been there, done that

[MaineDem]

17. This is indeed true

I believe all states are following the same basic model and lining up lawyers. In fact, we have had more than we can use.

It's important that everyone know the hotline number. 888-DEM-VOTE. It can be used to verify poll locations and to report any type of voter suppression all over the country. it will be linked to the appropriate state.

The article mentions that these attorneys will be bored. I hope that's the case eveywhere. I'd rather have help in place and not need it than the reverse.

[flyarm]

25. WE HAD L;AWYERS UP THE ASSHOLE IN 2004 IN FLA..

AND WE HAD THE HOTLINE..

AND I WAS A POLL WATCHER AT LARGE IN PRIMARIES, EARLY VOTE AND GENERAL..

a waste of time folks!

fly

[rodeodance]

19. fight back dems.

Republicans say the opposition is exaggerating flaws in previous elections

Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Andrew Welsh - Huggins

Democrats are openly lining up Election Day teams of lawyers across the country to fight what they allege could be GOP efforts to suppress votes.

Republicans quietly say they have their own strategies for potential problems Nov. 7 but won’t give specifics. They say Democrats’ concerns are overblown.

"They’re going to have an awful lot of people standing around with nothing to do," said Bill Todd, a Republican lawyer in Columbus who expects to work for the state GOP on Election Day. ........

[EarthNeedsHope]

20. This is what McKinney did in Georgia following 2002 election

Huge teams of lawyers monitor the elections here now to fight off DIEBOLD.

[fshrink]

24. Unless there is a massive and specific

class action about this issue, it will take generations to reconstruct our reputation as a democracy, and therefore our credibility worldwide.

[Sapere aude]

28. If someone broke into your house, not once but 2 or three times and

you could not prove who did it, even though you are sure someone did, I guess you would give up doing anything about it because the "broke into my house" paradigm obviously won't have worked. Doesn't matter if it is true or not.

[Totallybushed]

29. No.

I would take steps to see that it didn't happen again. This is what is missing.

But having your house broken into is passive. Winning elections is active. Whining, even if justified, isn't doing the job. What will, do you suppose?

[Trajan]

37. What they need is spine .....

and vision ....

WHERE are the Progressive Visionaries ? ...

Democrats need to speak about what they believe: about social security ... about health care ... about SMART diplomacy and statecraft ....

They need to take charge, and describe what a Democratic regime would look like and do ..... in stark opposition, and as superior competition to, what we have now .... They need to speak forcefully about RATIONAL security ... security at home, abroad and in our lives and futures .. WITHOUT diminishing constitutional rights or risking attack ....

There is a smart way to protect the homeland, and it is NOT what the GOP have offered us ....

The electorate should be told, right now and often, that Democrats WILL keep america strong by protecting its treasured institutions and franchises (AND by spending more money at home in ways that matter) ..... The GOP have lied about the ability of Democrats to protect America ... and fence sitters need to feel safe with Democrats; and they WOULD be safe if we promoted GOOD policies (which we do) ....

The American people have been fed a lie for decades now .... and they believe it .... The Democratic Party needs to get out there and TELL them .....

And we dont have to destroy the american way of life to do it ....

[Totallybushed]

38. You're absolutely right.

Americans want the thing the Dems have to offer.

But, and this is an important but, they also need to show how they are going to protect, not just our treasured institutions, but how they are going to use those institutions to protect American lives.

It is a simple mantra that the GOP has, but it has been very effective for them. We need to show how we can do it better, and we can, or we will lose the election. Don't get me wrong. I think the Dem approach is more effective, especially in the long-run. But the GOP is concentrating on the short run. And let's face it, a dead "terrorist" can't kill you. The fact that for every terrorist killed, three more take his place is too complex for the average voter.

[gasperc]

42. we'll have to take to the streets folks

that's the only thing that will get the attention.

My sense is that the GOP will do all it can to hold on of course, however should one or both chambers fall, they will challenge elections all over the place and then in the coming days a "crisis" will emerge to distract the public from the recounts, etc. Expect a attack on Iran or a big crackdown in Iraq.

I'm one to really doubt an attack on Iran at this time, Cheney may be chomping at the bit but I think they want things cooled down to keep gas prices low and stable any misstep could make prices soar and even releases from the strategic reserve wouldn't mitigate the problem.

[Totallybushed]

47. Of course they will

challenge all over the place. We showed them how.

[leftofthedial]

43. for a firing squad?

[JPZenger]

62. 2004 in PA. - Polls Were Overflowing with Lawyers

In the Nov. 2004, tons of lawyers volunteered their services to Democratic organizations. Many were from New York. Unfortunately, too many were sent to Pennsylvania, where there was nothing for them to do. (PA. had a Dem. Governor and a Dem. Sec. of State and no history of election fraud outside of Philadelphia). I visited many polling places while working for Kerry, and found many lawyers and poll watchers who were all hyped up, but with absolutely nothing to do.

The place they were needed was in Ohio, where UberSecretary of State/Bush Campaign Chairman Blackwell was stealing the election.