Bush confessed to crimes on National Radio -- Mirandize and book him.

[understandinglife]

Here's George Walker Bush's confession:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17text-bush.html

Here's the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa

Here's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04

Cut the claptrap, yammer-yamering and Mirandize and book him ....


Peace.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Let me be the 1st to agree and to K & R this thread UL. nm

[Nicole]

2. Let me be 2nd

:kick:

[livvy]

3. Couldn't agree more. A third here. K/R n/t

[Broward]

4. The people need an agency spying on Bush

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. There is an 'agency' that should be spying on him

It's called the Democratic Party,

[TahitiNut]

6. $10,000 and 5 years in prison on EVERY single count!

Nothing less will do.

§ 1810. Civil liability

An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.

[Pachamama]

9. Well, 5 years for each count - puts it at 150 years-sounds right to me!

Indict the treasonous criminal NOW!

:grr:

[lumpy]

19. Bump

rx

[rman]

20. take away all their ill gotten goods

[bowens43]

7. A sitting president can not be indicted.

[babylonsister]

8. Well perhaps we need legislation to change that rule. nt

[Walt Starr]

10. Not true at all.

That is only the *opinion* of the Justice Department and the Justice Department has no power to indict nor to enforce that *opinion*.

The issue has never been visited in a court of law

[understandinglife]

17. "The issue has never been visited in a court of law." -- I think it's ...

... time for that "visit" to happen, Walt!

Charge and book the chump...


Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. This is a law that goes against the Constiution

and he clearly broke that law.

[cureautismnow]

22. No problem. Impeach THEN indict the traitor. nt

[bowens43]

55. Agreed, this is the route to take.

When we win back the house and the Senate in 2006 we can begin the process.

[understandinglife]

26. A Ken Starr "flashback" ... Freedman debates Gormley on the issue of ...

... indicting a President:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june99/indict_2-1.html

The Constitutionality argument.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on this, we're joined by two constitutional law scholars. Eric Freedman teaches at Hofstra University School of Law; he has published an extensive study of the Constitution's impeachment clause. And Ken Gormley teaches at Duquesne University Law School. He examined this subject in last month's Stanford Law Review. He also wrote Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation, a new biography of the first Watergate special prosecutor.

Wonder how they would argue their positions, now ...


Peace.

[understandinglife]

28. Richard M. Mathews: Indicting a Sitting President

Indicting a Sitting President

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2005-10-19 16:14. Activism

By Richard M. Mathews

Precedent exists to indict a Vice President.

Vice President Aaron Burr was subject to indictments in two states while still in office. Burr stayed out of those two states to avoid prosecution.

In the case of Spiro Agnew, Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. While still Vice President, Agnew plea bargained a deal in which he plead "no contest" to tax evasion. He resigned the same day he entered his plea.

For a President, there is no clear precedent one way or another. The closest is the case of Nixon. The Grand Jury reportedly wanted to indict Nixon. Prosecutor Jaworski convinced them to avoid the issue of whether the President may be indicted by naming him as an unindicted coconspirator. This was sufficient to get a subpoena for Nixon's records including the tapes. Nixon argued that the subpoena was invalid because he was not subject to indictment. The Supreme Court sidestepped the indictment issue by ruling that they did not need to answer that question in order to reach their conclusion that the subpoena was valid. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 687 n. 2 (1974).

There is not a single word in the Constitution that supports a claim that the President cannot be indicted. On the contrary, the Constitution merely says this about impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:

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.

Note that in the above sections the Constitution treats impeachment of the President exactly the same as impeachment of any other Officer. The only place where the Constitution treats the President differently with respect to impeachment is in that the Chief Justice sits as the presiding officer in the Senate trial of a President:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Since the Constitution treats the President identically to all other Officers ....

More at the link:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3820

When I first posted this article, October 20, 2005 (http://tinyurl.com/c8rgu), it was in the context of Bush's waging an illegal war and deceiving the Nation. Some ambiguity may still exists regarding those crimes.

However, today, Bush admitted committing crimes including violations of the Constitution. No ambiguity exists.

Bush should be indicted, but, at a more fundamental level, those whom he has harmed should bring charges against him and, given the law, he should be issued an arrest warrant, informed of his rights, and booked. Let a jury of his peers decide his fate, thereafter. It's (barely) still the American way.


Peace.

[mod mom]

11. No one is above the law. I agree book him!

[BuyingThyme]

12. Why do you have to bury your point in so much rhetoric?

This is a complicated issue.

[understandinglife]

16. I'll strive to be more terse, next time ...

:evilgrin:


Peace.

[leftchick]

13. It wasn't just on the radio, he had it fucking TELEVISED!!!

we have his confession live and in living color...



President Bush delivers his live radio address in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Saturday, Dec. 17, 2005 in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

[understandinglife]

14. In_deed.

Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. But who will do it?

Can anybody do it? :shrug:

[understandinglife]

23. ACLU, on behalf of the victims of Bush's illegal actions, files charges ..

... would seem to be one way to start the process.

I'm sure some courageous lawyers and law enforcement officers and judges can find a way to protect all of us from this outlaw ...


Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

21. Now if his personal lawyer weren't the Attorney General ...

No indictment can issue unless some prosecutor steps up, and that ain't happenin'.

[hootinholler]

37. Um the AG is not the Pres.' personal lawyer.

He's supposed to be the people's lawyer.

-Hoot

[Neil Lisst]

40. once the president's personal lawyer, always ...

what was his last job?

[hootinholler]

60. Not *'s personal lawyer...

Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President's official capacity, and does not serve as the President's personal attorney.

Not to say A.G. isn't in shrubbies pocket, but, he wasn't his personal lawyer.

Currently that post is held by a prominent criminal defense attorney Jim Sharp, er, well according to RawStory, he could be a different Jim Sharp:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters June 3 that the lawyer’s name was Jim Sharp, but refused even to confirm whether he is James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney.

==%<--- (snip)

Sharp’s highest profile client was Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal who helped Lt. Col. Oliver North accumulate untaxed wealth in overseas accounts.

Far lesser known, however, is a 1994 finding by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he engaged in “unethical and criminal activity” for pressuring a witness to commit perjury. The charge was leveled by one of Sharp’s witnesses when he represented his self-avowed “good friend” Joe Harry Pegg against a charge of conspiring to import marijuana in 1988 and 1989.

But, to me, that sounds like a shyster^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyer that * would hire.

-Hoot

[Neil Lisst]

65. It IS the president's personal lawyer. Irrespective of anything contrary

And always has been.

Gonzo is Bush personal valet and has been for years.

[understandinglife]

24. Conyersblog -- comment # 48:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000326.htm#comments

Domestic spying.

My comments.

1/ It is just delightful that this story should be published while the "patriot" Act is being fillibustered.

2/ It is far beyond egriegious that this story was sat on for a year, At whos' request? Did I hear that Correctly????? What???????!!!!! This is the differance between a paper of record and a propaganda mill (Talon, is the comparison I raise)

Now as for the legalities, let's enjoy a couple excerpts from the 1952 Youngstown sheet and tube case, a landmark on the topic of the limits of Presidential power. Taken from 'The anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case' A.F.Westin. Asst Prof of Govt, Cornell University, member of the D.C. Bar. Published 1958 (Capitalization altered by me)

Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the judgment and opinion of the Court...

...1/ When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at it's maximum, for it includes all that he posseses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these curcumstances, and in these only, he may be said (for what it may be worth), to personify the federal sovereignity. If his act is held unConstitutional under these curcumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power....

...2/ When the President acts in the absence of either a Congressional grant or denial of authority, he can onlt rely upon his own independant powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which it's distribution is uncertian. Therefore, Congressional inertia, indifferance or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independant Presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperitives of events and comtemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of Law.

3/ When the President takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at it's lowest ebb, for he can only rely upon his own Constitutional powers minus any Constituional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain excusive Presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our Constitutional system...

<clip>

It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, (or, today, search) to find secreted in the interstices (the spaces in between) of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the Constitutional division of authority between the President and Congress.

There you have it folks, this matter has already been decided. By the Supreme Court. More than fifty years ago.

Suggest everyone read the entire comment.


Peace.

[hootinholler]

61. That one should have it's own thread.

Thanks for the link.

-Hoot

[Clara T]

25. Yep- Pretty straightforward as you lay out

Two large problems.

1) Supine Congress

2) American people are rapt by the latest developments in ipod Land and do not pay attention, let alone understand, to this "oh it just gives me a headache to think about" sort of thing.

Somehow it has to be brought down to the level of everyday to mobilize folks who for what are understandable reasons are thoroughly disaffected and disgusted with all politics.

Sometimes I think GW could walk right through town and pick off a few bystanders and it wouldn't register with folks. Even those who are against him might think it not politically expedient to point to the cadavers on the street. At least not during the Holiday Season.

[helderheid]

27. Send this to impeachbush.org!

[understandinglife]

29. Will do.

Peace.

[ngGale]

30. Kick....

:kick:

[hiley]

31. quick and to the point

book him dano

[mike_c]

32. OMG, read the law-- there is NO WAY...

...that this isn't a clear violation of the law. Even the exceptions specifically exclude tapping the communications of "any United States person" and require stringent reporting requirements. The president cannot do this secretly, even to the very limited extent that he can do it all.

Bush's authorization of wiretapping against U.S. citizens without a court order certainly looks like a series of felonies to me.

[EFerrari]

33. And the world has his public confession

:toast:

[bleever]

34. They will rely heavily on John Yoo's memorandum on executive power

regarding war, and its argument that neither the Congress nor the courts has any power to impose any limit on the president when it comes to matters of war, INCLUDING when to wage it and how to wage it.

However, the fallacy of this argument is captured nicely above in post 24, citing a relevant Supreme Court decision making clear that the Executive is ONE part of the government:

When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at it's maximum, for it includes all that he posseses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these curcumstances, and in these only, he may be said (for what it may be worth), to personify the federal sovereignity. If his act is held unConstitutional under these curcumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power....

Their argument is that war gives the president the powers of a king, and that as king, he is therefore the sole authority on when we are at war.


Reductio ad absurdum.


Book 'em, Dano.

[understandinglife]

35. "Book 'em, Dano." -- Yes, sir!

Great comments, as always, my friend.


Peace.

[Patsy Stone]

38. Absurd or not

I added it to Impeachment of Geroge W. Bush Research Forum thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x260


Great job, UL! Yep, those damn Amendments will get you every time! :hi:

[bleever]

42. Amendments?! That sounds like extra reading!

Ah'm all in faver of "extra credit" fer the nerds who haven't earned "legacy" status, but Ah don't think it's right to impose "litmus tests" on leaders, who lead because of their leaderly qualities in exercising leadership. Murka's about inclusion, not "excludimentation".

:thumbsup:

[Patsy Stone]

43. Okay

Excludimentation??? :rofl:

[Patsy Stone]

44. Sometimes, it's the law's fault:

"Mr. Berenson, the former White House associate counsel, said that in rare cases, the presidents' advisers may decide that an existing law violates the Constitution "by invading the president's executive powers as commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17legal.html

Dontcha hate it when that happens?

[understandinglife]

48. "excludimentation"!!!! ROFL.....

That is too funny .... :rofl::rofl:


Peace.

[understandinglife]

49. Not absurd and thank you for doing that, "Patsy"!

:hi: to you, as well ...


Peace, my friend.

[DemReadingDU]

36. Could Patrick Fitzgerald

expand his ongoing CIA leak investigation to go after Bush in light of these new crimes?

[Usrename]

45. Wonder if they might be spying on Fitz?

They must be stopped.

Impeachment? Indictment? Hell...

Heads on pikes!!!!

[DemReadingDU]

54. no doubt

Fitz needs to be extra careful

[bloom]

39. kick...

:kick:

[usregimechange]

41. Where is the DAMNED accountability! Impeach now, don't wait!

[Stephanie]

46. I am #50 to recommend!

And I recommend further that they frogmarch him out of the WH in handcuffs.

[understandinglife]

47. Thank you, Stephanie, and I agree.

Time for outlaw Bush to do some time ... he's a confessed, multi-count felon.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

50. WaPo and NYT Editorials:

Spying on Americans


Sunday, December 18, 2005; Page B06

IN THE WAKE of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the New York Times reported last week, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of hundreds of U.S. citizens and residents suspected of contact with al Qaeda figures -- without warrants and outside the strictures of the law that governs national security searches and wiretaps. The rules here are not ambiguous. Generally speaking, the NSA has not been permitted to operate domestically. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that national security wiretaps be authorized by the secretive FISA court. "A person is guilty of an offense," the law reads, "if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute" -- which appears, at least on its face, to be precisely what the president has authorized.

<clip>

What's more, Mr. Bush's general assurances that the program is legal offer no indication of what legal authority, if any, permits this surveillance ...

More at the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701005.html

This Call May Be Monitored ...


On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks, and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a "national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be."

General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless, Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also have violated the law.

<clip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?ei=5090&en=5174791e648f571d&ex=1292562000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

So, both rags, one of whom is a witting accomplice to a year(+) cover-up of Bush's felonies and Constitutional violations, sorta get it. Neither has the courage to print the banner, front page headline, that should be appearing on their and every other major newspaper and news magazine in America ...

Confessed Felon Bush Must Resign

Peace.

[Swamp Rat]

51. THEY know who you are and what you are doing! ... I see red, under my bed.

[understandinglife]

52. "One Nation Under Surveillance"!! That's is one of your very best, SR ...

... and, hey, I want those dudes to know exactly who I am ... bring it, bring it, ....


Peace, my friend.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

53. It looks like the coup may be getting underway. n/t

[understandinglife]

56. We are still a Nation of laws and it is time for every citizen to use ...

... those laws to corral the outlaws and bring them to justice. I think Americans are awakening to the threat from within, and are going to act.


Peace.

[Time for change]

57. In a democracy what you are recommending would happen

There is a lot of work to do to get our democracy back.

[LWolf]

58. So what is the first step in getting that done?

Who, exactly, makes the first move, and what is it?

[EFerrari]

59. The Congressional Invertebrates have to be prodded

onto the beach. There's a thread in GD asking people to contact their critters. Impeach the scofflaw.

[understandinglife]

63. In addition to what the Congress should do, I hope the ACLU, or ..

... some public defender group(s) will work with those who have been treated illegally and un-Constitutionally by the President (and his minions) to enable them to bring aggressive action against the President in the courts.

I think the Paula Jones 1997 Supreme Court ruling may be relevant because that unanimous decision established that sitting Presidents and Vice-Presidents can be compelled to testify under oath. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5079995#5082925)

If you are going to compel a President to testify under oath then the President should also be open to whatever legal action(s) that testimony merits. Bush has admitted his crimes to the entire world so all that remains is to charge him and prosecute him.

Bush is now a self-confessed, multi-count felon; I suspect more than a few law enforcement officers and lawyers should be willing to see to it that he is charged and prosecuted.

No one is above the law in America and if the Democrats are seeking a rallying meme that should be it --

"NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN AMERICA."

Peace.

[BamaBecky]

62. Kick kick kick >>>

[AZBlue]

64. Thank you for posting.

Although I knew they existed, I was wondering what the specific laws were - now that we have them, what's the delay? Congress doesn't want to ruin his holiday?

[understandinglife]

66. John Dean: “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.”

Glad that John Dean noticed that factlet, as well!

Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'

December 19, 2005

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975

Glad that Senator Boxer took note of what John Dean had to say ....


Peace.

[okcitykid]

67. If Mr. Bush Will Apologize

I will ask you not to impeach him:

http://justapieceofpaper.theinsideout.us/

But if you impeach him, It won't bother me anymore.

[understandinglife]

68. Welcome to DU. He can apologize all he wants, that will not spare him ...

... from being held accountable in both criminal and civil courts for his vast crimes against the Constitution and humanity. Impeachment is just one of many legal actions he and his neoconster fellow criminals shall visit.


Peace.