mid-term election potential

[wyldberi]

I've heard that more than 50% of registered voters who plan on voting this coming November are planning on voting for a Democrat, and that less than 35% are planning on voting for a Republican.

I've also heard that numerous polls are predicting that the Democratic Party will become the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next Congress that convenes in 2007. These same polls are also stating it is a good possibility the Senate will swing under Democratic control.

fyi: passing retroactive legislation to legalize a crime does not grant immunity to anyone who committed that crime prior to the date of the legislation. Even if the present Congress says george w. bush has the right to kidnap and/or torture individuals - they cannot pass any law that forgives any prior violations of U.S. criminal codes, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or our existing treaty obligations.

If the Senate and House of Representatives fall under the control of Democrats, get prepared to shout down any opposition to impeachment proceedings against bush and cheney and rumsfeld and gonzales that will be coming from Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein (who is from my state). Nearly the entire Congress is complicit in the crimes of bush&co, and they do not want thier failure to provide proper oversight of the executive branch to become an issue.

[wyldberi]

wyldberi said:

fyi: passing retroactive legislation to legalize a crime does not grant immunity to anyone who committed that crime prior to the date of the legislation. Even if the present Congress says george w. bush has the right to kidnap and/or torture individuals - they cannot pass any law that forgives any prior violations of U.S. criminal codes, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or our existing treaty obligations.

I was thrown back a little when I looked up the term ex post facto law.

The main usage is in connection with a legal body passing a law that makes a specific action a crime. The concern is to protect the rights of someone who committed that act prior to the date the new law is enacted, and to ensure that person cannot be tried for a crime that was not a crime at the time.

An ex post facto law can have another effect: To lessen the punishment for a crime that was punishable by a harsher sentence. In this instance, it appears such a law could prevent someone from being punished for a crime that had been previously committed. In this case, george w. might be able to escape the reward for his deeds by Congress.

However, when you read the words in the Constitution this second issue appears to disappear:

The Constitution, Article One, Section Nine:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Congress has no authority to legalize the crimes gw has already committed.

[Nathan Morrison]

Agreed! Wow Wyld, you are on a roll here, don't stop.

I'd also like to state that the law I'm primarily concerned with (because I have it, know it, and can argue it successfully withou any doubt left at the end) is 50 USC Sec. 435.

This law deals with the declassification of classified information, and was in place well before Bush took office the first time.

This law specifically was violated in the outing of Valerie Plame, and deals specifically with Executive Branch employees that declassify imporperly.

It applies to Bush, Cheney, Libby, Armitage, and Rove. It doesn't apply to Novak or Miller, as they are not members of the executive branch, however there are other laws they have broken that pertain to their profession (treason applies to all).

Wyld, I'm glad to see you collecting these facts here. This is exactly what these message boards are for. We all learn when any of us makes a discovery or follows a lead and does research. Thank you for sharing what you've learned, thank all of you. Together, we are a force to be reckoned with...

[wyldberi]

Impeachment is a process analagous to a Grand Jury indictment.

Either a member of the House of Representatives, or a representative of a state legislature which passed a resolution to impeach, presents a bill to the House of Representatives that lists the charges against the official. If the House votes in the affirmative for impeachment, a formal document is drawn up and submitted to the Senate. At this point the process of impeachment is done.

From that point a new process begins, consisting of a trial by the members of the Senate and presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Clinton was impeached by the republican-led House of Representatives. The primary charge was perjury which occured during a grand jury appearance.

During that appearance, the prosecutor handed Clinton a definition of "sexual relations" to read. This definition limited the term to intercourse between a male and female.

Clinton was then asked the question: "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski?"

Looking at the paper, Clinton replied: "I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski." Whereupon, the prosecutors produced the infamous blue dress.

Basically, Clinton was the victim of entrapment. If he confessed to having sexual relation according to the common usage of the term sexual relations, that includes oral sex, he would be admitting his previous disclaimers made to the public and the press were a lie. By using the definition provided by his accusers, he was, technically, telling the truth; but he put himself in the position of appearing to lie to the Grand Jury, once the additional evidence and testimony about the nature of his trysts with Lewinski came out. In order for this to be the case, you have to substitute a definition for sexual relation that differs substantially from the one Clinton was handed.

The Senate voted to acquit Clinton of the charges brought against him by the House of Representatives. No action was taken against Clinton for the charge of perjury.

Any number of charges could be issued against george w. bush and lead to his impeachment. The first hurdle is to have the issue brought before the House of Representatives. I'm not sure, but I suspect the Speaker of the House has some authority over the calendar or agenda of House business, and therefore, the ability to control what issues are heard.

If a bill of impeachment comes onto the floor for consideration, the republicans would be placed in the awkward position of admitting the possibility for some type of malfeasance on the part of the administration and allowing d**ning evidence to be presented, or rejecting the measure outright and d**ning themselves as accomplices after the fact.

The major problem is the political machine controlling the republican party has bribed nearly every republican member of Congress in one fashion or another. The ability to leak evidence of criminal wrong-doing is the leverage used twist the arms of republican congressmen and women who raise objections to walking in lockstep along party lines, except in those rare cases where they are granted a special dispensation to do so for the sake of currying favor with their constituancies where their particular votes are not needed to insure passage of whatever legislation is being considered.

I'm not sure what the best possible charges would be. Treason in the case of Valerie Plame is certainly right up there.

Mass murder, genocide, war crimes, and illegally invading a soverign nation under the international crimes against humanity is the one I tend to like. This can be backed up by Rep. Conners' investigation into the Downing Street Memos, lies told to the American people, to Congress, and to the world community as to the reasons America needlessly attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq.

There were numerous international crimes committed in Iraq. Changing the currency is a crime under international treaties. Allowing mercenaries responsible to no chain of command onto the battlefield, and protecting them from prosecution for crimes they commit is a crime in itself. Setting a "Viceroy" in place to rule a conquered nation? Give me a break. Having that viceroy sign contracts with multi-national companies to pillage the resources of that nation and imposing those contracts as binding upon whatever government was to follow is a crime.

george w. has adopted the CIA's rendition program. Regardless of when this atrocity was established, he has knowingly sanctioned the use and expansion of this program that violates numerous federal laws.

But perhaps the most telling of all would be the charge of obstruction of justice, and destuction of evidence at a crime scene where the World Trade Center is concerned. If bush were to be impeached and convicted of this, the evidence that could potentially come up would do away with the need for a criminal trial. The first responders who went to the pile would simply dismember his body with their bare hands.