But who to impeach? Bush? Of course. Bush and Cheney? I like it, but can you do it in one action or does it take two? Bush and Gonzales? No because it leaves Cheney out of the loop. All three perhaps? Does that mean Pelosi becomes acting President?

Hmmmmmmmmm---

Since Gonzales is appointed, I believe he cannot be impeached. I believe only elected officials can be impeached. To impeach both Bush and Cheney would be the ultimate, and yes, if that happened, it appears Pelosi would become President.

The trick would be to make sure the WH and the Repugs don't dump Cheney and get enough senate votes to put someone like McCain in as VP, thus thwarting the effort to rid us of the top two criminals only to be replaced by a strong supporter of the two.

This "off the table" stance has to be put back "on the table" and can only be done with a massive "Impeach Bush + Cheney" push from the grass roots.

Brad, are you ready to move the movement forward???

Democrats need to recognize that what's at stake here is not control of the Presidency or the Congress. What's at stake is the Constitution. Frankly, I would rather see every Democrat lose his/her seat in Congress than establish the precedent that the President can do anything he wants with complete legal impunity.

John Dean said start the impeachments with Gonzo, I believe he is correct. He can not be allowed to just resign or get fired, WE NEED TO IMPEACH HIM.! I believe this gets the dirty laundry of election stealing out of the closet and in the face of the blind, "everything is OK with our elections" asleep-at-the-wheel public! I'm so angry and I intend to use that anger to throw these madmen out! Hopefully, a turning point was reach yesterday that will not play in their favor. I don't mean to be cynical, unsensitive, or heartless about yesterday, but I cannot repress my anger and want to put it to good use. I appologize to any one this offends.

The wheels are coming of when "GOP darling", Bush family friend, and republican operative Victor Gold accepts the notion that 9-11 could easily have been an inside job:

A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war - just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story.

(Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Neo-Cons and Holy Rollers Destroyed the GOP, emphasis added).

Leftisbest #2

You said "Since Gonzales is appointed, I believe he cannot be impeached".

The constitution provides that:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

(Article II, Sec. 4, emphasis added). And the sole power of impeachment belongs to:

The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment.

(Article I, Sec. 2).

I've contacted my Representative and Senators several times by email for impeachment for Gonzo. Here's Specters response:

Dear ** ****** :

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent controversy surrounding the dismissal and appointment of United States Attorneys. I appreciate your concern and your opinions on this very important issue.

The ninety-three U.S. Attorneys across the United States are at the forefront of the fight against crime and terrorism. They are responsible for prosecuting criminal cases brought by the federal government and for seeking justice in our communities. U.S. Attorneys are tasked with a very important and challenging job and we are fortunate to have so many hard working and talented professionals willing to serve in this important role.

Two separate but related issues have arisen regarding U.S. Attorneys. First, the Senate Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. Second, Congress is addressing the legal authority of the administration to make interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys.

U.S. Attorneys are politically appointed. They are are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. They are tasked with carrying out the policy agenda and policy priorities of the President and his administration. In doing so, U.S. Attorneys, like all political appointees in the administration, serve at the pleasure of the President, meaning the President can dismiss these individuals at his will.

Under the auspices of 'serving at the pleasure of the President,' many legitimate reasons to dismiss a U.S. Attorney exist. U.S. Attorneys may be dismissed for performance related reasons. On the other end of the spectrum, a U.S. Attorney may be replaced for a reason unrelated to performance, such as the administration's desire to replace a U.S. Attorney with another individual for the purpose of giving the second qualified individual an opportunity to serve as U.S. Attorney.

Although the administration may properly dismiss a U.S. Attorney for a wide variety of reasons, there are a few reasons that are inappropriate. For example, it is inappropriate to dismiss a U.S. Attorney with the intention of coercing a prosecution in a particular case or as a punishment for decisions concerning the prosecution of a particular case. In general, U.S. Attorneys, like all prosecutors in our justice system, have a quasi-judicial function, meaning that they have a duty to the court to contribute to the administration of justice. On a daily basis, U.S. Attorneys must decide whether or not to pursue prosecution in particular cases. Especially in political or public corruption cases, U.S. Attorneys must have the ability and independence to make decisions and determinations on prosecutions absent the bias and pressure of politics.

Many questions have been raised regarding the recent concurrent dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. The Senate Judiciary Committee is extensively looking into these questions, both in a public forum and also in private. Publicly, the Judiciary Committee has held three hearings on the matter at which Committee members have extensively questioned Department of Jusitice officials as well as a former White House aide. Privately, Committee members and staff have met with Department of Justice officials to probe the facts of the case. The investigation is ongoing and it is my belief the Judiciary Committee must gather all the relevant facts before it is appropriate to make any judgments.

The second matter that the Senate Judiciary Committee has recently examined with regard to United States Attorneys is the issue of how appointments of interim United States Attorneys should be made. Regardless of the reason, from time to time U.S. Attorney offices are vacated. To ensure a vacant U.S. Attorney position is filled by an individual with the utmost integrity and the highest qualifications, the candidate must undergo an extensive and thorough vetting process. In the typical case, the executive branch first consults with the Senators for the state in which there is a vacancy in order to identify a worthy nominee. Once an appropriate candidate is identified, the President nominates the individual. The person who has been nominated to be U.S. Attorney must then undergo a complete FBI background check, must be carefully considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and must be voted on by the Judiciary Committee, and by the full Senate. The process is intensive and often spans many weeks or even several months.

When a U.S. Attorney resigns unexpectedly, it is important to fill the vacancy in an expedited manner in order to ensure that federal investigations and prosecutions continue uninterrupted. Due to the lengthy process required to fill the vacancy with a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, however, it is often necessary to allow for the appointment of an interim U.S. Attorney.

Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, interim appointments were handled first by the United States Attorney General, who was permitted to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for a period of 120 days. If no United States Attorney was nominated and confirmed by the Senate by the expiration of that 120 day period, a Federal Judge from the relevant District Court was tasked with making an appointment of a United States Attorney until a confirmation was obtained. The PATRIOT Act modified this process by granting the Attorney General the sole responsibility of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys.

Although the change made by the PATRIOT Act is consistent with the President's constitutional authority to nominate U.S. Attorneys, recent events led me to be concerned that this change is unnecessary and could possibly be used to circumvent the confirmation process. Because of this concern, I decided to cosponsor the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 (S.214), to return the interim appointment process to the status quo prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. This legislation unanimously passed the Senate on March 19, 2007 and I hope that it will soon become law.

Thank you again for writing me about the appointment and dismissal of U.S Attorneys. It is important for me to hear the opinions of my constituents and I rely on citizens like you to keep me informed. If you have any further questions about this issue or any other issue, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm gonna start calling now. Then, I'm driving down there and I'm not going home until I look each of them in the eye and find out what their excuses are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeez, I hope it warms up soon, I'd love to see the cherry blossoms.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/

leftisbest

You might find this piece edifying.

Here's my response to my Senator after he told me impeachment was not a practical solution.

Dear Senator Leahy,

It is not the success of any impeachment preceding that matters. In fact, I believe that it is the proceedings and the light that such proceedings will shed on the crimes of this administration that matter. It is the effort not the outcome that will make the biggest difference.

It is the actions of so many, you, others in Congress, the media and citizens in general, to split the difference on any and all disagreements, to seek politically expedient solutions, to not call a spade a spade that has allowed a mediocre man like George Bush to ascend to the most powerful position in the world.

This must stop and the beginning of the end will be impeachments proceedings.

Please take a stand and distinguish yourself from the accountable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Senator_Leahy@leahy.senate.gov [mailto:Senator_Leahy@leahy.senate.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:41 PM
To: XXXXXXXX@comcast.net
Subject: From Senator Patrick Leahy

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about the Bush Administration..... (cut for brevity)

....An impeachment inquiry would be a highly divisive ordeal that would dominate Congress' time and attention. With less than two years left in the current Administration, impeachment proceedings would likely consume much of the remaining time and attention during the 110th Congress. Impeachment proceedings would also likely compromise the ability of Congress to address the many issues that face our nation during the remaining 21 months of this Administration. ...

Thank you again for contacting me.

Patrick Leahy
UNITED STATES SENATOR

onyx

...impeachment proceedings would likely consume much of the remaining time and attention during the 110th Congress.

You should write back and say, "Well, since you're not doing anything else with that time, what the heck, eh?"

:-(

... Agent 99 said...

You should write back and say, "Well, since you're not doing anything else with that time, what the heck, eh?"

But they are busy... busy seeing whuch ones can get deepest into the corporations' pockets in order to get the money they need for their own re-election. In fact they're damn busy with that as we speak.

I'm finally getting some attention for my long time impeachment campaign in Salt Lake's largest weekly magazine. I've also been given a forum to vent on one of Utah's most popular, blogs.

Here's the newspaper heading I'd like to see!

zap

Yeah, it should read: "Well, since you're not doing anything else FOR US with that time, what the heck, eh?"

It takes a 2/3 vote for impeachment. The republicans have tended to vote as a block most of the time, so a 2/3 vote is not in the cards at this time.

When they get over it and realize the 110th is not a rubber stamp, some of them may vote with the dems.

If so, Cheney goes first if Kucinich has his way (see post #8).

The House must lead the way (see post #6). And even if there is an impeachment in the House, the Senate must convict on a 2/3 vote as well. No chance at this time.

The republicans are even filibustering the new Intelligence Bill (S. 372), which among other things, makes the budget amount for the CIA etc. no longer secret ... it becomes the knowledge of the people ... public. As it now stands the budget is calssified so we do not know the real deficit.

Only two republicans voted to stop the fillibuster and go to a floor vote on the new intelligence bill (Hagel, R-NE; and Snowe, R-ME; S 372 Filibuster Vote Link).

Since the republicans are filibustering the intelligence bill, I take it everyone can figure out that they would also filibuster an impeachment bill.

Cheney is aware, now, of the movement to impeach him:

Vice President Dick Cheney's office was looking into news that Articles of Impeachment will be filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich for crimes which have not yet been identified by the Democratic Congressman. The news appeared on a blog last night produced by the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.

(Raw Story, emphasis added).

1. Cheney made a comment that he didn't want Rumsfeldt to go because ,"they will start coming after you and me." (meaning Bush)

2. If Leahy is so upset about the missing e-mails why isn't his office accepting help from two techie sources that could retrieve the e-mails. His office blew off the sources when calling Leahy's office.
Too busy I guess to really get to the bottom.

Just seems that even the Mafia has more ethics than this bunch in the White House now. The stench of lying, greed, corruption is so over powering I would think the most loyal party members would faint.

Larry Bergan:

For the first time I am responding to myself!

The graphics I have provided are apparently too graphic for Utah residents so I will try to describe them to you because Google has prevented me from providing them to you as well on my personal BLOGSPOT.COM CRAPPY FREE SHIT-TY PIECE OF CRAP FREE SPEECH, (MY ASS), SPOT OR WHAT EVER IT IS, (as of thursday april 19th), unless they make an ass out of me by reinstating my password there.

"FORUM TO VENT" was a graphic with a picture of George Washington with the caption "George" and underneath it was the caption "I cannot tell a lie". To the right of that was a pathetic picture of George Bush with the caption "George" and underneath it was the caption "I cannot tell the truth".

"NEWSPAPER HEADING" was a graphic with a picture of the Salt Lake Tribune featuring a picture of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, with a caption saying "President Impeached", but I replaced the picture of Bill Clinton and Al Gore with a picture of "George Bush" saying "President Impeached and a subtitle saying Russ Feingold appointed as Majority leader"

I thought I had a forum in Utah, but I guess I was FUCKED!

I hope to see the pictures reinstated, but I doubt GOOGLE will do that!!

Welcome to FASCIST AMERICA ---- SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!

Larry, I think one of the Blogger servers is down because almost all the blogs on Blogspot are suddenly missing some of their pictures... without regard to the nature of the content. When it is repaired, I bet your pictures show back up. And try signing in through a different browser. Sometimes that works.

Well, I'll be damned, Windows Explorer is working.

This brings up the issue of:

WHY IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS SHIT!!

HUH!!!!

Agent 99:

My Firefox browser still isn't showing some pictures. I wonder what's happening. I got a letter from the man who runs the blog in Utah and he didn't take anything down.

That being said! I'm an idiot for freaking out! I am embarrased as I can be!

I haven't been censored in Utah or anywhere else. Nothing I've ever posted on BradBlog has ever disappeared, and I couldn't figure out what was happening.

If Al Gore were in the white house, I probably wouldn't have even considered I was being censored.

Larry, dude, I watched the whole El Torturador hearing today: Believe me, you have nothing to be embarrassed about. No matter how paranoid you can get, the government is so transcendentally amok, everyone has to agree you have a basis. And you are right. If Al Gore were filling his elected office, it's for sure we wouldn't have the vast bulk of the problems we have right now.

As for your login gig, if it were me, I'd dump all the cookies on all my browsers; login to Google; then try logging in to Blogger... from whatever browser might let me on. I have heard tell of people who have mystically been locked out of their blogs this way, and it usually resolves as mysteriously as it started... which leads me to believe it is something as ephemeral as waiting for a bad cookie to time out....

Re-air of the whole Senate Judiciary hearing is starting on C-SPAN right now. Ideal viewing for a man who wishes to regain his sense of what is what and who's who in this ordeal. What an appalling display! OMG

Agent 99:

I did a "system restore" operation on my computer and it fixed the problem. Wish I had tried that first. Now I just have one other problem. If I try to record "Countdown" on my DVD recorder, all it records is snow with no sound. It has done this all week, but today I was there when it started to record snow again. I checked to see if MSNBC was coming in OK and it was so I was able to record it manually. I'm absolutely positive I had the channel set right.

Anyway, I deleted the program and redid it, so we'll see what happens tomorrow.

I have to go now. I think there are little green men ringing my doorbell.