Login Here
From Rep. Zoe Lofgren:
These assertions of executive privilege have wide-ranging implications for both Congress' day-to-day oversight of the Bush administration and for efforts to hold the President and Vice President accountable.
That is why I introduced the Executive Branch Prosecutions Act. This legislation would suspend the statute of limitations for crimes committed while the president and vice president hold office. Federal law currently suspends the statute of limitations for crimes related to national security. That suspension should extend to any crime committed by the President or Vice President while in office.
President Bush has already shown his willingness to do what he can to avoid scrutiny of his actions even after he leaves office. A federal judge recently struck down part of his 2001 Executive Order giving former presidents and vice presidents the right to review executive orders before they are made public under the Freedom of Information Act. Confronted with this administration's unprecedented demand for secrecy, Congress must do all it can to inject some measure of accountability and transparency where possible. The Executive Branch Prosecutions Act goes a long way toward accomplishing that goal.
Bush has defied congressional subpoenas and used his presidential powers to illegally thwart investigations into criminal activity committed by his administration. He openly mocks the whole concept of oversight, as if it were some petty personal snub. This seriously compromises the ability to conduct any investigation within the statute of limitations.
The party elites scoff at Dennis Kucinich and his talk of impeachment, even as the country (and last night's CNN audience) openly cheers. If Democrats don't want to dirty their hands holding this lawless administration accountable, at least leave the door open so others with firmer constitutions and a stronger sense of civic duty can do so in the future.
Share This 
Spotlight
zed.
zed!!!!?
Go Jane! Go Zoe!!!!
I’ll tell ‘em
congrats RonD.
First? (It would be my first “first”!)
I think this congressperson has done the right thing.
I wish my congressperson would as well, but not likely (Brian Baird).
So near, and yet so far.
Could we eventually get ‘em, or will Hillary grant ‘em pardons?
Why thank you, Mary So nice to see you.
Holding my breath waiting for Nancy and Rahm to get on board.
The applause for Kucinich mentioning impeachment was way more than I thought I’d hear. I notice that The Beard & Co blew it off so they could ask more “serious” questions from the “Best Political Team on TV” (since no 5th graders are running talkshows this year).
Impeachment is the Cure.
So, riddle me this. If the House passes such a bill, does the President have to recuse himself from vetoing it due to the inherent conflict of interest?
I can’t think of one reason why EVERY Democrat wouldn’t be on board ith this.
I advocate impeachment of Bush and Cheney even after they leave office if we can’t do it while they’re in office. I don’t know why that can’t be done (did I miss something in the Constitution?). Impeachment is the political analog to the criminal code Lofgren addresses with his bill. While it won’t remove them from office after they’re gone, it will create a permanent record of their crimes against this country.
Perhaps it is better to impeach them AFTER they are out of office. For one they can’t pardon and there would hardly be an excuse such as retribution.
Yes, yes, YES!! Plus a war crimes tribunal, and a truth & reconciliation commission for the lower-downs. If we tolerate this criminality, our children will see more of it.
SanderO @ 15
Hillary will pardon them no matter when & how they might or might not get convicted.
puppethead @ 14
Prosecution. And throw away the key or hand ‘em over to The Hague. Maybe they can get visits from Maureen Orth, Andy Sullivan and the rest of the Villagers.
Yeah, international prosecution is the only possibility. Whoever is prez here will pardon them “to heal the nation,” just like the scumbag Ford did for Nixon.
eCAHNomics @ 19
The real cure is to lance the boil. Indict and try.
Off to pick up MsD. See everyone in a little while.
what she said. and let’s expand it to include EVERYONE in government.
oh, forgot. Can’t do that. Congress would not pass that.
At least this woman is trying to do something! And for that I give her credit. It may go nowhere. But I am for any and all legislation that at least puts on the table the issues which are driving all of us nuts.
I would forgive them all their sins if they would just leave now.
Failing that, hound them to the ends of the earth.
IMHO, nothing is more important than ultimately bringing these bastards to justice. And I wish that someone would ask each of the Democratic candidates, “Would you as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, pursue the prosecution of crimes perpetrated by your predecessor and his administration?” A yes or no answer will do.
Rep. Lofgren is upholding her Constitutional duty.
I wonder how many other Representatives will do likewise, if this Act makes it to the floor for a vote.
Jane, you said recently that impeachment was not nearly enough. Those words keep coming back to me. Great bumper sticker idea: Impeachment Is Not Enough.
Chris Matthews thinks the peruvian trade question was a plant because the audience booed. He believes the audience doesn’t know or care about that. That’s exactly how most of media flapping mouths view americans outside of their circle. Americans couldn’t possibly know or care about stuff like that. Or is Chris talking about himself?
TheraP @ 22
And the PrezCandis should be asked their opinion of this in the debates. No more Clinton “bygones” Presidencies, please. Indict, try, convict, imprison.
Impeachment after leaving office can also be used to deny emoluments of office: motorcades, offices, aides, Secret Service protection, pensions, and healthcare. Shrub and Dick have enriched themselves enough to pay for this themselves; besides, our deficit-burdened budget can’t afford it.
ironranger @ 26
Tweety is pretty much ALWAYS either talking to or about himself.
TeddySanFran @ 27
this is sounding better and better
OT Swift vote moron is giving a million dollars to anyone who can prove his swift boat ads were wrong. Kerry is willing too but I wonder if a court case might be a better venue? Couldn’t we suboena stuff and look for coordination between them and Bush?
http://blogs.trb.com/news/poli....._mans.html
Unfortunate that Zoe isn’t the Speaker of the House.
eCAHNomics @ 8
That is a real and worrisome possiblility. Wasn’t that basically what Bill did with everything pappi bush didn’t explicitly pardon. Of course let us not forget that Bill was apparently an admirer of Nixon.
How can this be a just society if we DON’T bring BushCo to justice?
TeddySanFran @ 27
I’m prepared to be fiscally responsible in this fashion.
wigwam @ 24
Agreed. Without the justice that could come from holding them accountable, how can this country move forward in any meaningful way?
Canuck Stuck in Muck @ 12
**snort**
I just hope that the War Crimes court brings charges against Bush, Cheney, et al and the U.S. is mature enough to extradite them to the Hague to stand trial for their crimes.
Am I wearing a tinfoil hat here? Clearly this administration has committed impeachable offenses. Crimes against the people: easily documented!
Suspension of habeas corpus: NO, Bill Clinton did not do that!
[Incoherent with rage she pauses, drags on her cigarette, and tries to calm down.]
Please remind me again, exactly why is impeachment off the table–?
Jo Fish @ 18
I would love for the first act of a Democratic Senate under a Democratic President to sign on to the ICC and acknowledge it. But that’s unlikely to happen because of the endless bullshit from the right how “we can’t have international forces snatching our soldiers off the street” or similar nonsense.
Of course, some of our soldiers are war criminals, as are a number of our leaders. Since our country seems unwilling to pursue them through our own legal system we should be letting the ICC take over.
nomolos @ 23
They should have to take their sins with them.
It’s what’s Left Behind that will trouble us for generations.
Besides, unless they are held accountable, this sick bunch or their heirs will be back, with a vengence.
There will be no ‘healing,’ there can be no ‘healing’ until justice is done. Period!
Jane Hamsher @ 34
Oh, hey. We all must sacrifice in some way…
OT..On Senate FISA..has this been mentioned:
(snip)
Comments Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies:
“Even with the substantial improvements made by the Committee yesterday, the bill still authorizes unconstitutional surveillance of Americans’ international communications; the bill eliminates the prior judicial approval for such surveillance that was contained in FISA before the Protect America Act and is required by the Fourth Amendment.”
So no matter what Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) brings to the floor, it looks like lights-out for the FISA Court here.
TPM
fucking eh! post-administrative impeachment. jane, zoe, I was waiting for this…corporate Rahm can go ucfk himself…nancy, grow a…spine.
Bush is such a chickenshit that he’ll probably have Blackwater augmenting his Secret Service guard-for-life. Even if they take the SecServ away from him, he’s still got Blackwater and Vance to fall back on. And don’t forget that Daddy Bush is still rich enough to buy protection for the family into about they year 3535, if man is still alive after the plethora of fauna named Bush.
Votus @ 35
I don’t see the Republicans agreeing to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission such as S. Africa’s where Republicans would have to publicly admit their crimes. Prison sentences is what looms for many in the GOP.
Right on, Jane!!!
Of course, Bush will veto this, and Republicans will help sustain the veto. The only chance for a bill like this is probably in 2009, before the next president (there will be a next president, won’t there?) has had time to get his/her hands dirty, and still thinks that he/she can avoid committing illegal acts.
Actually, the real Executive Over-reach bill is called Impeachment.
Bob in HI
Jane Hamsher @ 34
Diamonds or pearls?
mack @ 10
You’re turning purple already. Let it out!
*g*
Bob in HI
While Lofgren’s Bill is an admirable start, I think we’ve also learned that we can’t trust Congress, either.
Lofgren’s bill should not wait for Congress to act. It should allow an appropriately constituted Grand Jury, first to investigate, and then to hear charges against the President,Vice President, or any appointed official, and finally, to bring them to Trial. Anything less is just window dressing.
I am as concerned with Congress’ collusion with the Administration over the last eight years, as I am with the Administration’s attack on Democracy.
mb
this is a GREAT post and one that needs to be highlighted and dugg
let me make a request and I hope it gains legs;
the next time we have the opportunity to question kucinich, he needs to be asked this question;
“if the leadership refuses to hold the administration to account for crimes committed, do you commit your administration to holding hearings of impeachment for the current administration even after they have left office”
let’s get THAT debate “on the table” since pelosi is remiss in her duty
you want to see a the administration start to act a with a little more responsibility?…then start the public debate about impeaching him after he leaves office
and we can start that debate if we broach the subject and question to kucinich
after his answer we can ask the other candidates and watch them dance around the issue
Bluetoe @ 37
Extradition isn’t needed..The Republicans past a law in 1996 that is the means of their destruction..it just needs to be applied..There is also no statue of limitations..And as with any Republican law, it has the death penalty. Gonzo was/is very aware of this and tried to fashion a go free card..
a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
David W. Bartoo @ 40
So much for my attempts at humour!
Yep I agree with you. They must be prosecuted. If we had followed through on the nixon impeachment maybe we would have made ineffectual some of the slime that we now have.
How there cannot be impeachment is beyond me.
Bluetoe @ 45
There is, however, the problem of presidential pardons. Per Article II Section 2:
There is a lot of confusion as to what that exception actually means, but it surely can’t be invoked unless articles of impeachment have been filed.
Jo Fish @ 11
thank you thank you thank you. impeachment is the first step to getting something of a democratic republic back on track. It will killl me if they guys aren’t impeached because it will mean we have become a nation of cowards. And then i’ll have to leave. and that would be a bummer. IMPEACH NOW. The only reason the dems are getting awya with this is because we are all letting them. Ain’t no deus ex machina comin to fix it all. It’s up to us. I’m losing up that we’re up to IT>
For Pelosi, it was either impeachment or cocktail parties. She chose the cocktail parties so she could wear her pearls and flirt. No, really, I’m serious!!!
dakine01@28:
How true. I can’t decide which group have bigger egos that need continual stroking, politicians or media pundits. Most days (esp in campaign season) I think pundits.
LS @ 55
Hmmm. Pearls, not diamonds.
@ 51 Past??? Jeebus..
LS @ 55
“dime mints are a girl’s best friend”
Steve-AR @ 42
As Republicans have noted, the SJC bill would not be signed by Bush.
So be it! No bill is better than a bad bill. No bill means that the FISA Court is still fully authorized, as before. If the WH wants a “modernized” bill, let’em come begging for it.
Bob in HI
a made a post a day or so ago and I think it fits on this thread pretty nicely;
if a candidate REALLY wants to “take the lead” and actually LOOK like the “leader” this country NEEDS right now, all they have to do is the following;
do what Americans voted verwhelmingly…
BRING THE CRIMINALS IN OUR GOVERNMENT TO THE BAR OF JUSTICE!!!
the MAJORITY of Americans want these criminals impeached, our constitution DEMANDS it and their oath of office set their name to a sacred pledge
stand by the constitution and RESTORE a the government for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE
NOT for corporations and CERTAINLY not BY corporations.
that’s the ticket, start talking like you will hold the administration accountable to the law when they leave office ESPECIALLY these criminals escape the law while they are in office
TAKE THE LEAD protecting this country’s constitution, do that and you can count on the following;
THE NATION WILL STAND WITH YOU IN EVERLASTING GRATITUDE
you want me to show you “one of the greatest presidents that ever lived”?
that president be the person that brings to the bar of justice the criminals that have ABUSED our constitution, have LAUGHED at the rule of law, have SUBJIGATED our armed forces and have laid the integrity of our nation to waste
THAT person will be “the greatest president that ever lived” and will earn for themselves a seat of honor besides Lincoln and Washington and the debate will live for generations as to which president did more for our nation
George Bush & Dick Cheney have basically been Mob bosses in charge of America over the past seven years. They believe there are no laws except their laws. I spit on them both.
Steve-AR @ 58
That is what scared the bejeebus out of Mukasey, in answering the water-boarding issue…
bobschacht @ 60
Good point. No immunity should be enough of a poison pill for this steaming pile of crap.
Bob, this is the approach the Dems need to take with everything. Why should they demean themselves by thinking they have to compromise with scum like this administration. Every one of the progressive positions is simple to state and understand and the Dems just have to get and stay on message and they will win.
Will they do that. Don’t bet on it.
Good idea. But what if Cheney doesn’t leave office? Hmmm? The Constitution says George Bush must step down January 20, but it doesn’t say anything at all about Cheney. Yes, Bush leaves office on a cold day in January, 2009. But it might be a cold day in hell before Cheney leaves.
Mark Morford, sort of a milder Rude Pundit with a dash of driftglass, revs it up today:
This just in from the good folks at ACLU:
I also think that attention has dropped on the issue of probable cause. The August bill lowered the standard to “reasonable belief”, which may not require evidence, and I’m not sure about the SJC version.
Don’t forget the guidelines posted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Just remember: No bill is better than a bad bill. If Bush doesn’t like it, make him come crawling.
Bob in HI
Madison Guy @ 66
On my paranoid days, I think W’s not leaving. Musarraf envy.
realworld @ 65
However, As ClammyC sees it, we’re on the right track…
* The House passed a bill that would give $50 billion, largely tied to bringing the troops home. While it is far from perfect, it did get support from some of the Out of Iraq Caucus;
* The Senate had two bills introduced today, both of which did not have 60 votes.
* Reid introduced a bill that basically mirrored the House bill – it “failed”, 53-45
* McConnell introduced a bill (without consulting Reid) that would give $70 billion with no strings attached. That bill failed, 45-53.
So, what does that mean? Well, for starters, we have three things that come from this.
(1) The Democratic Party passed a bill with both a majority of the House and Senate, which reflects current American sentiment to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end.
(2) The republican party will not let the will of the people speak, nor will it let a majority of Congress’ will speak for the American people.
(3) The republicans in the Senate are hell bent on giving blank check after blank check to Bush for an unending occupation of Iraq - against the will of America.
http://www.boomantribune.com/s...../115436/59
We, Lahoma and I, remain hopeful that justice will gain traction.
Elliott @ 33
and that ’s exactly the point. We can’t wait to impeach until after they leave office. The head of steam that constitutes the national rage against these guys should be optimized now. People will indeed have moved on once the election is over; the sheer relief , no matter who wins the election, will deflate everyone justifiable rage.. Now is the time to exercise the impeachment option. To insist on it. I believe it is the only only way most americans will have any faith in the system again. The notion floated by dems that the smart thing to do is “run out the clock” on these criminals who have casued the death of a million or more innocent people is too cowardly to be believed. I sense the country NEEDS to see these guys pay, especially right now when so many people are hurting and struggling to just survive, keep their homes, put gas in the guzzler cars these guys promote.
Just before the last election there was a panel of lawyers and law profs on cspan taling about a basis for impeachment. They all said we should be demanding of any democrat who wanted our vote that they state publicly they would support impeachment. And if they waffled, no vote for them, and let them know that. They were right. The dems have hosed the nation and don’t deserve the thin majority they got. I’ve been calling and writing my whole congressional delegation often, reminding them that I am NOT voting for anyone who doesn’t support the Kuchinich resolution now. I think we couldl do this if everyone called every dem who voted to table the resolution and threatened to not vote for them in 08. And mean it. They think they have us over a barrel. They don’t. They need us worse than we need them. People have to start believeing that. Thanks.
Kinda OT but there is an interesting clause in the constitution that could allow shrub to dismiss Harry’s pro-forma Senate sessions (Art II Sect 3). Am I reading this right? If so, it would be very interesting to see him use this.
Another possible Pelosi justification for keeping impeachment off the table is her view of her place in history as the first Madame Speaker of the House. I’ll bet she doesn’t want to go down in history as finally getting the position, and then being accused of being an overly aggressive “woman”. The irony, of course, is that everyone disrespects her for her non-actions, and she will go down in history being viewed as too weak.
Impeachment obsticle:
The Senate & House were complicit in all of Bush/cheney’s antics, Repugs and Dems (Dems if only for not trying to stop them. Repugs have shown that a minority party can do quite a bit). They’re scared the mud will splatter on themselves.
eCAHNomics @ 69
Permanent Vice President Cheney has tired of the current puppet preznit and is actively seeking another for next term. Don’t despare, Bush fans. Jeb is still in the running.
unfortunately, punaise, the last paragraph will be just wishful thinking if any of the top 3 dems get the nod. Those entrenched Bushies will all become h/o/e converts come Jan. ‘09. The pundocracy has already fallen in love w/ Hillary, has a lot of respect for Obama and thinks Edwards would be a swell guy to recomend a good barber.
If ‘progressives want to be progressive, then DK is the one to work for, else just more shuffle, shuffle as the USS Contitution goes for its final dive.
How does this fit in with notions of executive immunity? Can someone give a brief rundown on where immunity does and doesn’t apply?
eCAHNomics @ 69
my take on the musharraf thing from the start was that it was a deliberate WH inspired dry run to see how it played here. Stick that in your pipe. Has anybody watched the libertytv.com video?
Badwater @ 76
Maybe 29 people in the United States would vote for a ticket with Cheney on it. Bush/Cheney are poison to both parties. The Musharraf scenario is the only way they could attempt to stay, but it would be storm the Bastille day should that happen in this country.
john @ 77
I’m not overly impressed with any of them, but Dennis is in the lower tier with Gravel and Obama, IMO. Sorry.
CTuttle @ 70
And we should be repeating this endlessly until the MSM are forced to take notice and Republicans are made to pay a price for their ongoing cheerleading of Bush’s war.
www.libertynewstv.com
pax americana — not so far fetched by th look of things
Badwater @ 76
Am I understanding that he can run again but in that case he would have to run again. Which repub candidate would want him in 2008? Or are you thinking of the future, if we have one?
Or is this snark and it’s been a long day and I am not getting it?
More criminality:
Gonzo’s Got Some ‘Splainin’ To Do
Fired Washington State USA John McKay, on what Alberto Gonzales could be facing:
“It’s apparent that he had a conversation with the president about David Iglesias and David Iglesias was fired six weeks later,” he said. “There was real live investigation and the Republicans wanted the indictment out in time to help them in the election, and Iglesias said ‘no’ and they fired him.
“Now if all of that’s true and the attorney general was aware of that when he fired David Iglesias, then he has some ’splainin’ to do — and probably in front of a grand jury.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/059110.php
P J Evans @ 81
IMO?? Sorry, don’t get all the blogspeak, but to your point:
1. “lower tier” - I thought Obama was at least # 2 in the polls and in some h/o/e/ are neck and neck. DK is often sited as “lower tier” by the msm and, therefore, to be disregarded in terms of coverage, so if you accept the msm’s rule over your support, I suppose sorry is the right term. If, on the other hand, you prefer someone else for some substancive policy reason, then say so, but please, leave the “lower tier” bullshit to the msm.
Bush=Executive Impunity.
-GSD
Zoe, I love you.
Of course, we all know that if this law’s passed, the Republicans will try to get Bill Clinton convicted under it for, for, for — oh, they’ll dream something up.
That’s my rep, alright. Gotta love her!
From Article 2, Sec.3:
“…he may, on extraordinary occasions,convene both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper…”
RE: the Attorney firings. If this is at the ‘pleasure’ of the President, why then is it so terrible that the President fired them? I know it was done for political reasons, etc. but this part puzzles me.
Fozetti @ 91
Answers own question. Politization of Justice is a no-no.
Fozetti @ 91
See Steve-AR’s post (#85). If those allegations are found to be true, then there is a strong possibility that at least one attorney was fired to cover a crime. The president is NEVER allowed to do that, no matter how pleasurable he may find it.
So, the firing was done as much for criminal purposes as political.