*Statement on Prosecution of Former High Officials *

We urge Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a non-partisan independent Special Counsel to immediately commence a prosecutorial investigation into the most serious alleged crimes of former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Richard B. Cheney, the attorneys formerly employed by the Department of Justice whose memos sought to justify torture, and other former top officials of the Bush Administration.

Our laws, and treaties that under Article VI of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land, require the prosecution of crimes that strong evidence suggests these individuals have committed. Both the former president and the former vice president have confessed to authorizing a torture procedure that is illegal under our law and treaty obligations. The former president has confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

We see no need for these prosecutions to be extraordinarily lengthy or costly, and no need to wait for the recommendations of a panel or “truth” commission when substantial evidence of the crimes is already in the public domain. We believe the most effective investigation can be conducted by a prosecutor, and we believe such an investigation should begin immediately.

Drafted by The Robert Jackson Steering Committee
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/robertjackson

Signed By:

Center for Constitutional Rights
http://www.ccrjustice.org

The National Lawyers Guild
http://www.nlg.org/

After Downing Street
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

American Freedom Campaign
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org

Ann Wright, retired US Army Reserve Colonel and US diplomat http://www.voicesofconscience.com/

Backbone Campaign
http://www.backbonecampaign.org

Brad Blog
http://www.bradblog.com/

Cities for Peace
http://citiesforprogress.org/

CODE PINK: Women for Peace
http://www.codepink4peace.org

Daniel Ellsberg, Truth-Telling Project
http://www.ellsberg.net/

Defending Dissent Foundation
http://www.defendingdissent.org/

http://www.delvalvets4america.org
;
Democrats.com
http://www.democrats.com/

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
http://www.space4peace.org/

Gold Star Families for Peace
http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/

Grandmothers Against the War
http://www.grandmothersforpeace.org/gatw

Grassroots America
http://www.grassrootsamerica4us.org/

High Road for Human Rights Advocacy Project
http://www.highroadforhumanrights.org

Iraq Veterans Against the War
http://ivaw.org/

Justice Through Music
http://www.jtmp.org

Marcus Raskin, co-founder of Institute for Policy Studies, member of editorial board of the /Nation/, member of the special staff of the National Security Council in the Kennedy Administration

Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/

Naomi Wolf, author of /End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot/, and /Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries/
http://naomiwolf.org/

National Accountability Network

Northeast Impeachment Coalition
http://www.neimpeach.org/wp/

Op Ed News
http://www.opednews.com/

Peace Action
http://www.peace-action.org/

Peace Team
http://www.peaceteam.net/

The Progressive
http://www.progressive.org/

Progressive Democrats of America
http://www.pdamerica.org/

Republicans for Impeachment
http://republicansforimpeachment.com/

United for Peace and Justice
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

Velvet Revolution
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/vips

Veterans for Peace
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

Voters for Peace
http://votersforpeace.us/index2.html

War Crimes Times
http://www.warcrimestimes.org/

Wisconsin Impeachment/Bring Our Troops Home Coalition
http://www.impeachwi.com

World Can’t Wait
http://www.worldcantwait.net

If the Senate will act now, then their reputation will begin to improve and the fabulously inept administration will have a harder time messing things up between now and January.

By Gina Cavallaro – Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 8, 2024 6:15:06 EDT
Copyright Army Times

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2024, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2024 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2024, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

(read the whole article…)

[tags]holy shit[/tags]

All this and more, Jay Rosen Friday on Glenn Greenwald’s podcast.

[tags]podcats, now will you believe me that Meg Thatcher Bush the First knew what they were doing in when they hurled all those greenhouse gases skyward, would you believe global warming was a plot to open a northwest passage and open the polls to oil exploration, well then would you believe that the anthrax thing was used to silence dissenters and lay a foundation for war with Iraq, kbaithx[/tags]

[update: the original from last night was pulled... here's another copy, for as long as it lasts]

San Francisco has collected sufficient signatures to place a new measure on the next ballot renaming the “Oceanside Sewage Treatment Plant” to the “George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant.”

Digg it

[tags]george w bush sewage treatment plant, will there be a george w bush library[/tags]

“Only 35?” Well might you ask, since seldom does a George W. Bush work day go by that he doesn’t commit an impeachable offense, or compound the effects of one already committed.

On July 10 Representative Kucinich restated his Bill of Impeachment to focus on the way Bush deceived Congress and the American people and led us into war with Iraq. Here is the Bill of Impeachment as read into the Congressional on July 10, 2024 (beginning at page H6384, 2024 Congressional record):

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2, rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows:

AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE ONE—DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDS TO FRAUDULENTLY
OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 3 of the Constitution ‘‘to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’’ deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under article II, section 2 of the
Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq.

To gain congressional support for the passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in S.J. Res. 45:
1. That Iraq was ‘‘continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. . . .’’
2. That Iraq was ‘‘actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. . . .’’
3. That Iraq was ‘‘continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.’’
4. That Iraq has demonstrated a ‘‘willingness to attack, the United States. . . .’’
5. That ‘‘members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2024, are known to be in Iraq. . . .’’
6. The ‘‘attacks on the United States of September 11, 2024, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations. . . .’’
7. That Iraq ‘‘will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so. . . .’’
8. That an ‘‘extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack. . . .’’
9. That the aforementioned threats ‘‘justify action by the United States to defend itself. . . .’’
10. The enactment clause of section 2 of S.J. Res. 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to ‘‘defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. . . .’’

Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in S.J. Res. 45 in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.
To wit:
1. Iraq was not ‘‘continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability . . . ’’
‘‘A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical
warfare agent production facilities.’’ The source of this information is the Defense Intelligence Agency, a report called, ‘‘Iraq—Key WMD Facilities—An Operational Support Study,’’ September 2024.

‘‘Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2024 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.’’ The source of this information is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a report entitled ‘‘Report on Whether Public
Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information.’’ June 5, 2024.

‘‘In April and early May 2024, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile
biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President CHENEY, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was later disclosed that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that ‘only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.’’’ The source of this information is the House Committee on Government Reform, minority
staff, ‘‘Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons.’’ March 16, 2024.

Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, including the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named ‘‘Curveball’’ whom the Germans had informed the Bush administration was a likely fabricator of information including that concerning
the Niger yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller’s account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2024, which in fact is the media
source of this information. ‘‘In practical terms, with the destruction of the al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new biological weapons program or was conducting biological weapons-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in biological weapons at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing, biological weapon agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. The Iraq Survey Group harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.’’ That’s a direct quote from the ‘‘Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD,’’ commonly known as the Duelfer report by Charles Duelfer.

‘‘While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, the Iraq Survey Group judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a
policy the Iraq Survey Group attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.’’

The source of this information, the ‘‘Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD,’’ Charles Duelfer.

2. Iraq was not ‘‘actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.’’
The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group’s report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that ‘‘Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War. Iraq Survey Group found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.’’ The source of this information, the ‘‘Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD,’’ Charles Duelfer.

Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2024. The CIA had warned the British Government not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush, this according to George Tenet of the Central
Intelligence Agency on July 11, 2024.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in a ‘‘Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’’ on March 7, 2024, said as follows:
‘‘One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been—it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue to further scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.’’

3. Iraq was not ‘‘continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.’’
‘‘Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.’’ George Tenet, who was Director of the CIA, said this in Prepared Remarks for Delivery at Georgetown University on February 5, 2024.

‘‘We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq. We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them. It’s been quite a success for 10 years.’’ The source of this statement, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, in an interview with Face the Nation, February 11, 2024.

On July 23, 2024, a communication from the Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair, ‘‘Memo to British Ambassador David Manning’’ reads as follows: ‘‘British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam Hussein was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum
to Saddam to allow back in the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.’’

4. Iraq did not have the ‘‘willingness to attack, the United States.’’
‘‘The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the U.N. basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don’t possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did 10 years ago.’’ The source of this quote, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, in a transcript of remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in February 2024.

The October 2024 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that ‘‘Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.’’

5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11 or with al Qaeda’s role in 9/11.
‘‘The report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence documents significant instances in which the administration went beyond what the intelligence community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an operational partnership
and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11.’’ This is a quote from
Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
entitled ‘‘Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller, IV’’ on page 90.

Continuing from Senator Rockefeller:
‘‘The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable
threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.’’ Senator Rockefeller.

Richard Clarke, a National Security Advisor, in a memo of September 18, 2024 titled ‘‘Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks’’ found no ‘‘compelling case’’ that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

On September 17, 2024, President Bush said:
‘‘No, we’ve got no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11. What the Vice President said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al Qaeda.’’

On June 16, 2024, a staff report from the 9/11 Commission stated: ‘‘There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have
no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.’’
‘‘Intelligence provided by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included ‘reporting of dubious quality or reliability’ that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, this according to a report by the Pentagon Inspector General.

‘‘Feith’s office ‘was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,’ according to portions of the report released by Senator Carl Levin. The Inspector General described Feith’s activities as ‘an alternative intelligence assessment process.’’’ The source of this information is a report in the Washington Post dated February 9, 2024, page A–1, an article by Walter Pincus
and Jeffrey Smith entitled ‘‘Official’s Key Report on Iraq is Faulted, ‘Dubious’ Intelligence Fueled Push for War.’’

6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would probably only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under threat of attack by the United States.

According to information in the October 2024 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the administration at the time that they were seeking congressional support for the authorization of use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would probably only transfer weapons to a
terrorist organization if ‘‘sufficiently desperate’’ because it feared that ‘‘an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable.’’

‘‘The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against the United States and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any chemical and biological weapon attacks on the U.S. homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory.’’

7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces and no capability to provide them to international terrorists who would do so.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence
information found that the Iraq regime would probably only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States. According to information in the October 2024 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was available to the administration at
the time they were seeking congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraqi regime would probably only transfer weapons to a terrorist organization if ‘‘sufficiently desperate’’ because it feared that ‘‘an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent
or unavoidable.’’ That, again, from the October 2024 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

‘‘The Iraqi Intelligence Service probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against U.S. and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The Iraq Intelligence Service probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to
conduct any chemical or biological weapons attacks on the U.S. homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory.’’
As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2024, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had informed U.S. and British intelligence officers that ‘‘all weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.’’ That from the Washington Post, March 1, 2024, page A15, an article
entitled ‘‘Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed By 1995,’’ by Colum Lynch.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, in a report called ‘‘Iraq—Key WMD Facilities—An Operational Report Study’’ in September 2024, said this:

‘‘A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’’

8. There was not a real risk of an ‘‘extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack’’ because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
Here’s what Colin Powell said at the time:

‘‘Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War.’’ Speaking of Iraq, Secretary of State Powell said, ‘‘Iraq is not threatening America.’’

9. The aforementioned evidence did not ‘‘justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself’’ because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using nonexistent WMDs against the United States.

10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause of the Senate Joint Resolution 45 was predicated on misstatements to Congress. Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with
the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of servicemen and -women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1 million innocent
Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long-term cost of over $3 trillion.

President Bush’s misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress’ sole prerogative to declare war under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander
in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm’s way, jeopardizing their lives and their families’ future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[tags]impeachment[/tags]

• Engage in a program of manufacturing false allegations of voting fraud in targeted jurisdictions where the Democratic Party enjoyed an advantage in electoral performance or otherwise was problematic for the President’s Republican Party, in order that public confidence in election results favorable to the Democratic Party be undermined;
• Direct United States Attorneys to launch and announce investigations of certain leaders, candidates and elected officials affiliated with the Democratic Party at times calculated to cause the most political damage and confusion, most often in the weeks immediately preceding an election, in order that public confidence in the suitability for office of Democratic Party leaders, candidates and elected officials be undermined;
• Direct United States Attorneys to terminate or scale back existing investigations of certain Republican Party leaders, candidates and elected officials allied with the George W. Bush administration, and to refuse to pursue new or proposed investigations of certain Republican Party leaders, candidates and elected officials allied with the George W. Bush administration, in order that public confidence in the suitability of such Republican Party leaders, candidates and elected officials be bolstered or restored;
• Threaten to terminate the employment of the following United States Attorneys who refused to comply
  with such directives and purposes;
  1. David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico;
  2. Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California;
  3. John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington;
  4. Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona;
  5. Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California;
  6. Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada;
  7. Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan;
  8. Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri;
  9. Harry E. “Bud” Cummins, III as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas;
  10. Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, and;
  11. Kasey Warner as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Further, George W. Bush has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President conspired to obstruct the lawful Congressional investigation of these dismissals of United States Attorneys and the related scheme to undermine and tamper with the conduct of free and fair elections, and to corrupt the administration of justice.

Contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, George W. Bush has without lawful cause or excuse directed not to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives certain witnesses summoned by duly authorized subpoenas issued by that Committee on June 13, 2024.

In refusing to permit the testimony of these witnesses George W. Bush, substituting his judgment as to what testimony was necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the checking and balancing power of oversight vested in the House of Representatives.

Further, the President has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President directed the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to decline to prosecute for contempt of Congress the aforementioned witnesses, Joshua B. Bolten and Harriet E. Miers, despite the obligation to do so as established by statute (2 USC § 194) and pursuant to the direction of the United States House of Representatives as embodied in its resolution (H. Res. 982) of February 14, 2024.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[tags]impeachment[/tags]

Congressman Robert Wexler said,

“This administration, unlike any other administration in the history of our country, has refused to appear before Congress to answer questions,” he says. “No administration has done that before this administration. So the American people need to ask themselves, is this going to be the way that we expect our presidents to conduct their business – totally immune from the law, totally immune from the Constitution? That’s not what the separation of powers was designed to do.”

“I am not unmindful of the fact that the speaker of the house has very publicly said that impeachment is off the table. But at the same time, the Constitution is not discretionary. When there is a systematic abuse of the power of the presidency as we have witnessed during the last 71/2 years of George Bush, I believe it is incumbent upon members of Congress to stand up and make the case, and to conduct appropriate inquiries and oversight….”

“These are not insignificant matters, and to suggest that President Bush has suffered enough because his popularity is low, or to suggest that we should ignore these potential violations of law and the Constitution because he happens to be in the last year of his term in office, I disagree….”

“What is the incentive for the next president, or presidents years from now, to follow the law if this president does not have to answer for any of his actions?”

Dennis Kucinich has presented 35 articles in a Bill of Impeachment. I am re-printing them here on an average of one a day since the bill was introduced.

Article 26
ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has used signing statements to claim the right to violate acts of Congress even as he signs them into law.

In June 2024, the Government Accountability Office reported that in a sample of Bush signing statements the office had studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush administration had already proceeded to violate the laws the statements claimed the right to violate.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article 27
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and instructed former employees not to comply with subpoenas.

Subpoenas not complied with include:
1. A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice Department papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2024;
2. A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25, 2024;
3. A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and documents , issued June 13, 2024;
4. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued June 13, 2024;
5. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Political Director Sara Taylor, issued June 13, 2024 (Taylor appeared but refused to answer questions);
6. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, issued June 26, 2024;
7. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Deputy Political Director J. Scott Jennings, issued June 26, 2024 (Jennings appeared but refused to answer questions);
8. A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for legal analysis and other documents concerning the NSA warrantless wiretapping program from the White House, Vice President Richard Cheney, The Department of Justice, and the National Security Council. If the documents are not produced, the subpoena requires the testimony of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff David Addington, National Security Council executive director V. Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2024;
9. A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for Lt. General Kensinger.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[tags]impeachment[/tags]

Both the [FISA Act] subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney’s fees.[17]

Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.

In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

Article 24
SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, knowingly violated the fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978 (FISA) by authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens to wit:

(1) The President was aware of the FISA Law requiring a court order for any wiretap as evidenced by
the following:

(A)”Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” White House Press conference on April 20, 2024 [White House Transcript]
(B) “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we’re talking about.” President Bush’s speech in Baltimore Maryland on July 20th 2024 [White House Transcript]

(2) The President repeatedly ordered the NSA to place wiretaps on American citizens without requesting a warrant from FISA as evidenced by the following:

(A) “Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.” New York Times article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau on
December 12, 2024. [NYTimes]

(B) The President admits to authorizing the program by stating “I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups. The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” Radio Address from the White House on December 17, 2024 [White House Transcript]

(C) In a December 19th 2024 press conference the President publicly admitted to using a combination of surveillance techniques including some with permission from the FISA courts and some without permission from FISA.
Reporter: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the
intercepts?
THE PRESIDENT: … We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.” [White House Transcript]

(D) Mike McConnel, the Director of National Intelligence, in a letter to to Senator Arlen Specter, acknowledged that Bush’s Executive Order in 2024 authorized a series of secret surveillance activities and included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2024. “NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort” by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 8/1/07

(3) The President ordered the surveillance to be conducted in a way that would spy upon private communications between American citizens located within the United States borders as evidenced by the following:

(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2024 he connected a “splitter” that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room”, Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]

(4) The President asserted an inherent authority to conduct electronic surveillance based on the Constitution and the “Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq” (AUMF) that was not legally valid as evidenced by the following:

(A) In a December 19th, 2024 Press Briefing General Alberto Gonzales admitted that the surveillance authorized by the President was not only done without FISA warrants, but that the nature of the surveillance was so far removed from what FISA can approve that FISA could not even be amended to allow it. Gonzales stated “We have had discussions with Congress in the past — certain members of Congress — as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.”.
(B) The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
(C) “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 unambiguously limits warrantless domestic electronic surveillance, even in a congressionally declared war, to the first 15 days of that war; criminalizes any such electronic surveillance not authorized by statute; and expressly establishes FISA and two chapters of the federal criminal code, governing wiretaps for intelligence purposes and for criminal investigation, respectively, as the “exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1809, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f).” Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06
(D) In a December 19th, 2024 Press Briefing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated “Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.”
(E) The “Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq” does not give any explicit authorization related to electronic surveillance. [HJRes114]
(F) “From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes.” From the “Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information” by the Congressional Research Service on January 5, 2024.
(G) “The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not implicitly authorize what the FISA expressly prohibited. It follows that the presidential program of surveillance at issue here is a violation of the separation of powers — as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied.” Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06
(H) On August 17, 2024 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit, in ACLU v. NSA, ruled that the “NSA program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution. … Judge Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the administration’s repeated assertions that a 2024 Congressional authorization and the president’s constitutional authority allowed the program.” From a New York Times article “Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the Law” 8/18/06 and the Memorandum Opinion
(I) In July 2024, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because, given the secretive nature of the surveillance, they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling did not address the legality of the surveillance so Judge Taylor’s decision is the only ruling on that issue. [ACLU Legal Documents] /blockquote>
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article 25
DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, violated the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating of a very large database containing information related to the private telephone calls and emails of American citizens, to wit:

The President requested that telecommunication companies release customer phone records to the
government illegally as evidenced by the following:

“The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) prohibits the knowing disclosure of customer telephone records to the government unless pursuant to subpoena, warrant or a National Security Letter (or other Administrative subpoena); with the customers lawful consent; or there is a business necessity; or an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury. None of these exceptions apply to the circumstance described in the USA Today story.” From page 169, “George W Bush versus the US Constitution”. Compiled at the direction of Representative John Conyers.

According to a May 11, 2024 article in USA Today by Lesley Cauley “The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth”. An unidentified source said ‘The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders’.

In early 2024, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected a request from the NSA to turn over customers records of phone calls, emails and other Internet activity. Nacchio believed that complying with the request would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National Journal, November 2, 2024.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the
Electronic Fronteir Foundation’s FF’s lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in 2024 he connected a
“splitter” that sent a copy of Internet traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the
NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a co-worker that similar rooms were being
constructed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. From “Whistle-
Blower Outs NSA Spy Room”, Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]
(4) The President asserted an inherent authority to conduct electronic surveillance based on the
Constitution and the “Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq” (AUMF) that was not legally valid as
evidenced by the following:
(A) In a December 19th, 2024 Press Briefing General Alberto Gonzales admitted that the surveillance
authorized by the President was not only done without FISA warrants, but that the nature of the
surveillance was so far removed from what FISA can approve that FISA could not even be amended to
allow it. Gonzales stated “We have had discussions with Congress in the past — certain members of
Congress — as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind
of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.”.
(B) The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
(C) “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 unambiguously limits warrantless domestic
electronic surveillance, even in a congressionally declared war, to the first 15 days of that war;
criminalizes any such electronic surveillance not authorized by statute; and expressly establishes FISA
and two chapters of the federal criminal code, governing wiretaps for intelligence purposes and for
criminal investigation, respectively, as the “exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and
the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 50 U.S.C.
§§ 1811, 1809, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f).” Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John
Conyers on 1/6/06
(D) In a December 19th, 2024 Press Briefing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated “Our position
is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following
September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this
kind of signals intelligence.”
(E) The “Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq” does not give any explicit authorization related to
electronic surveillance. [HJRes114]
(F) “From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has
expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion,
and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of
“electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress
intended to cover the entire field with these statutes.” From the “Presidential Authority to Conduct
Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information” by the Congressional
Research Service on January 5, 2024.
(G) “The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not implicitly authorize what the FISA
expressly prohibited. It follows that the presidential program of surveillance at issue here is a violation
of the separation of powers — as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having
studied.” Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06
(H) On August 17, 2024 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit, in
ACLU v. NSA, ruled that the “NSA program to wiretap the international communications of some
Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution. … Judge Taylor ruled that the program
violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for
intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the administration’s repeated
assertions that a 2024 Congressional authorization and the president’s constitutional authority allowed
the program.” From a New York Times article “Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the Law” 8/18/06
and the Memorandum Opinion
(I) In July 2024, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs
had no standing to sue because, given the secretive nature of the surveillance, they could not state with
certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling did not address the legality of the
surveillance so Judge Taylor’s decision is the only ruling on that issue. [ACLU Legal Documents]
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W.
Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXV
DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS
OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional
oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”,
has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, violated the Stored
Communications Act of 1986 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating of a very large
database containing information related to the private telephone calls and emails of American citizens,
to wit:
The President requested that telecommunication companies release customer phone records to the
government illegally as evidenced by the following:
“The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) prohibits the knowing disclosure of customer
telephone records to the government unless pursuant to subpoena, warrant or a National Security Letter
(or other Administrative subpoena); with the customers lawful consent; or there is a business necessity;
or an emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury. None of these exceptions
apply to the circumstance described in the USA Today story.” From page 169, “George W Bush versus
the US Constitution”. Compiled at the direction of Representative John Conyers.
According to a May 11, 2024 article in USA Today by Lesley Cauley “The National Security Agency
has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data
provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth”. An unidentified source said ‘The agency’s goal is “to
create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders’.
In early 2024, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected a request from the NSA to turn over customers
records of phone calls, emails and other Internet activity. Nacchio believed that complying with the
request would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National Journal, November 2, 2024.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W.
Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article XXVI
ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND
VIOLATING THOSE LAWS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional
oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”,
has used signing statements to claim the right to violate acts of Congress even as he signs them into
law.
In June 2024, the Government Accountability Office reported that in a sample of Bush signing
statements the office had studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush administration had already
proceeded to violate the laws the statements claimed the right to violate.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and
justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W.
Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[tags]impeachment[/tags]