Impeach Bush Coalition

“They have got us in a vise.”

2007-08-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

I am giving serious consideration to turning off the clock. Up until now I have held out hope that the Congress of the United States of America would finally come to its senses and Impeach George W. Bush for his admitted criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Today, that hope is just about gone.

I just read this, Democrats Feel Pressure on Spy Program, in the New York Times. The fact that the Bush administration is trying to get FISA re-written to cover its prior illegal acts should be the final piece of evidence needed to indict (impeach) him. Bush has been arguing since he admited violating FISA that he always had the authority to do so. If he is asking for the authority now, he didn't have it then. Slam dunk, folks.

Instead, the House of Representatives appears ready to change the law to accommodate the criminal. The unkindest cut of all is that my former Representative and good friend, Louise Slaughter, is quoted as follows:

“They have got us in a vise,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said as she left a Saturday afternoon meeting where senior Democrats were debating how to handle the issue in the final hours before recess.

I don't know Nancy Pelosi and I had just about given up on John Conyers, but Louise was always someone I could count on.

Say it ain't so, Louise!

Hagel Mentions Impeachment....Again!

2007-03-27T04:27:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska mentions impeachment again. This time, he does it on television. Crooks and Liars has the video HERE.

The Emperor's New Whitewash

2007-03-11T08:07:00.000-07:00

Surprise, surprise, the administration is misusing its intelligence gathering powers.

It's all over the news that the FBI abused its authority under the PATRIOT Act. Lost in all these revelations about our top law enforcers breaking the law was this item of criminal cover-up:

Privacy Board Clears U.S. Spy Programs
Remember when the President of the United States started illegally spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act way back in 2001? Well, this same criminal administration decided it needed to police itself, so it set up a five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in 2005. Last week, the board issued its report. Surprise, surprise, the illegal spying program got a clean bill of health.

How does the Emperor continue to get away with whitewashing his impeachable crimes? He appoints his good buddies to investigate him ...

Bush appointed [Carol] Dinkins, a Republican, to chair the board. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, and she is a longtime partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Gonzales was once a partner.

... and, hey presto, no criminal activity here!

From Daily Kos: McGovern Says Bush Worse Than Nixon, Calls For Impeachment

2007-03-08T16:30:00.000-08:00

by quaoar

If anyone should know an impeachable offense when he sees one, it should be George McGovern, the victim of Richard Nixon's no-holds-barred 1972 scorched-earth campaign.

Thirty-five years later, an 84-year-old McGovern sees an even bigger threat to the United States that he fought for as a decorated WWII bomber pilot -- the Bush Administration. Cheney -- he told an interviewer for the Madison, Wisc., Capital Times -- should resign.

More HERE

Republican Senator Suggests Impeachment

2007-03-06T14:15:00.000-08:00

"Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

This is a quote from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Read the whole article HERE.

Impeach Cheney?

2007-02-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

Recently uncovered news certainly solidifies the case for impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. Major Danby at Daily Kos has the details HERE.

The Clock is Still Running

2007-02-07T04:34:00.000-08:00

The impeachable offense that George W Bush admitted to 416 days ago is still on the table.

James Banford recently brought us up to date on the case for impeachment in Bush Is Not Above the Law. He reminded us of the grounds: Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Then he pointed out that:

The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was "illegal wiretaps." President Nixon, the bill charged, "caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code."

Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.

How many more days before the 110th Congress puts Impeachment back on the table?

From The Crisis Papers: Only America Can Restore America's Honor

2007-01-31T19:13:00.000-08:00

In six short years, the Bush regime has transformed the United States from an exemplar of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, to a pariah and a threat to international law and order. A recent BBC poll of twenty-six countries has found that, by a plurality of 49 to 32 percent, the United States is believed to play a "mainly negative" role in the world. These scores report a continuing decline in international respect for the United States. As Dave Zweifel writes: "We no longer are viewed as a beacon of freedom for the world, but a nation to be vilified for its war-mongering, its torturing and its refusal to work with other countries."

This transformation is due, in no small part, to the neo-conservative determination to have the United States impose a so-called "benevolent global hegemony" upon the world, and to the subsequent implementation of this objective in Iraq.

The neo-con "new world order" would be accomplished through the threat or use of the unrivaled military power of the one remaining super-power, the United States. This remarkable plan for a "Pax Americana" was no secret. It was, in fact, clearly articulated in 1997 by a policy group, the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). When first published, the PNAC "project" was merely a proposal. But with the appointment of George Bush to the presidency in 2001, the project was promoted to the status of United States policy, as most of the PNAC founders joined the Bush Administration. (For a history and analysis of PNAC, see Bernard Weiner: "Bush's Grand Game: A 'PNAC Primer' Update.").

More HERE

Impeachment Would Be Welcomed

2007-01-29T20:46:00.000-08:00

The latest Newsweek poll should cause the impeachment naysayers to rethink their position.

Somebody please explain why impeachment is still "off the table"?

Real patriots defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

2007-01-26T19:16:00.000-08:00

Veterans for Peace (VFP) made it clear today that not only do we need to get our troops out of Iraq, but Congress needs to impeach the president at the same time.

"We have to curtail the power of the executive so that whoever is in office next knows that there are limitations to that power," VFP Executive Director Michael McPhearson said.

"We need to impeach this president so we can get back on track and grow this country the way it should be."

How Long Will It Take Before We See This?

2007-01-23T00:01:00.000-08:00

Is New Mexico Next?

2007-01-22T23:59:00.000-08:00

Is New Mexico the latest state to consider an impeachment resolution? Perhaps....

Bush Has Stopped Beating Up on FISA.

2007-01-20T12:04:00.000-08:00

One of the questions prosecutors aren't allowed to ask a defendant is "Have you stopped beating up on your wife?" If the defendant answers, Yes, he is currently guilty. If the defendant answers, No, he is still guilty if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

George Bush's attorney, Alberto Gonzales, announced this week that the President has stopped beating up on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the statute of limitations hasn't run out. After Bush admitted in December 2005 to violating FISA for more than four years, Attorney General Gonzales defended his boss by saying that FISA did not apply. Now Gonzales says that, not only does it apply, but they have decided to obey the law, five years too late.

In a normal world where normal rules of criminal procedure apply, a felon who admits to violating the law is indicted. In the constitutional separation of powers, an indictment is called IMPEACHMENT. The 109th Congress failed to impeach (indict) Bush after he admitted to high crimes in 2005. Now he has affirmed his confession through his attorney in 2007. Will the 110th Congress also shirk its DUTY TO IMPEACH?

From David Swanson: The Public Relations of Impeachment

2007-01-18T09:18:00.000-08:00

Excerpt:

"The number one reason that Congress members and their staff tell you in private that they are not yet impeaching is fear of the media. The number two reason is fear of Nancy Pelosi.

"The number one reason that well-meaning citizens tell you they don't want impeachment consists of a PR strategy. People want to present an image that does not include what the corporate media says impeachment is. It is a long journey to move from seeing this as smart and strategic to seeing it as a self-defeating surrender to the corporate media.

"And the independent media isn't where it needs to be either. In part, this is because it tends to retell corporate stories in a more honest way, rather than telling stories that have been untold.

"It is a relatively short journey to see failure to demand impeachment as a moral failure. If we go into the next presidency with the next president free to launch wars on the basis of lies, torture, murder, detain without charge, spy without warrant, rewrite laws with signing statements, hide the workings of our government, disobey laws on his or her whim . . . I don't care what party he or she is from, I don't care if it's Nelson Mandela, you don't give that power to a human being. And that's what we're doing if we fail to impeach Bush and Cheney.

"Impeachment is too important to stop for consideration of elections, but if you do, and if you read John Nichol's book, you realize that impeachment is not politically dangerous. Failure to impeach when the case is clear is politically dangerous. History shows this, and you can ask John."

More HERE

From TPM Blog: A Special Comment on Impeachment

2007-01-16T16:50:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from Neerav's Blog at TPM Cafe:

And here lies the problem we face...

If the Democrats in Congress do not impeach President Bush and his Administration for their crimes, even if all of the investigations, hearings, and oversight pointed strongly in favor of impeaching President Bush, and even if all of the evidence gathered disgusts and outrages the American people to the point of making them DEMAND that President Bush and his Administration be impeached, they will be seen as complicit in the manifold crimes and grievances against the American people. They, along with their Republican counterparts in Congress, will be both seen and deemed as equally guilty of the crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against the American people. Having done that, the very trust that the American people have for their elected representatives in Congress will fall to the point of having them want to do await with not only Congress and its elected officials, but the entire United States Government, which brings me to an interesting passage in the Preamble of the "Declaration of Independence", written by Thomas Jefferson on July 4th, 1776:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely effect their Safety and Happiness"

Using this very principle, the American people, having tired of President Bush, his Administration, and the Congress, who are both complicit in and guilty of, crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against them, if they do not hold them accountable for their actions, can do away with the current government in power and institute a new one "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". This can happen now, or in 2008, when more seats in Congress are up for grabs, and when the White House is also at stake. The choice is yours, and yours alone, America. If you are so outraged of how President Bush and his Administration have been both governing and abusing their Constitutional and legal authorities, then it is both your right, as well as your imperative to demand to your members of Congress to hold the President and his Administration accountable for their actions. And if you are so outraged of how Congress refuses to hold President Bush and his Administration accountable for their actions, especially if they outright refuse to impeach President Bush and his administration, making them both complicit in, and guilty of, the crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against the American people, then it is both your right and your imperative to do away the government and institute a new one, especially in light that the government has repeatedly overstepped its bounds, and have abused its authority, which brings me to another juicy tidbit in the Preamble of the "Declaration of Independence":

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

Your future and your security are at stake here, America. Are you willing to let it be compromised now because you do not want to hold the current government accountable for their actions, or will you take action to ensure that your government is open, honest, and accountable, and that the people you elected listen to what you have to say? Again, the choice is yours, America, and you must choose wisely, not only for the sake of this country, but for the sake of current and future generations of Americans.

Kagro X on Signing Statements

2007-01-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

OK, you've all seen the story by now. George W. Bush thinks he's got the right to peek through your mail without a warrant.

Now, nobody who reads this blog can possibly be a stranger to signing statements at this point. We've been reading about them for a long time. We've even debated a bit about what they really mean, legally and practically. That is, legally speaking, they may not turn out to offer the Bush "administration" any protection if and when they do the things they are purporting to reserve the right to do. But practically speaking, they give every indication that they may in fact be doing those things, and doing them unchallenged. Which tends to take a bit of the shine off of the more optimistic legal view.

More HERE

Bloggers Needed!

2006-12-27T15:34:00.000-08:00

Impeachment is heating up, and so is my schedule.

I'm looking for some competent bloggers to write content for this site.

Are you interested?

You must already have your own blog and/or online writing samples. Please email me if you are interested at impeachbushcoalition AT hotmail DOT com.

Thank you!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

2006-12-25T12:52:00.000-08:00

Hey, Dean! Yo, Pelosi! Why Impeach?

2006-12-22T08:53:00.000-08:00

Pulled this explicit rant from Lukery's excellent blog:
(Disclaimer: "F" Word alert)

"Hey, Dean! Yo, Pelosi! Why impeach?

Two words: signing statements.

It's one thing to thumb your nose at the law and the process by which it's made, but to do it OVER 700 FUCKING TIMES in 6 years is beyond criminal. It's undeniable evidence of intent to consistently defy the law.

Oh, btw, the whole defence of being able to pull all of this 'cause he's a "wartime president"? Kinda requires being at war. Y'know, as in "declaration of-", which can be enacted by, yes, you guessed it, congress. "The Global War on Terror" is a tagline, not a policy or a strategy or, for that matter, A WAR. Throw that bullshit line on the pile of evidence that he doesn't give a fuck what congress, the people or anyone else thinks.

He will not listen. He will not play nice. He'll say he will and then, when you're not looking, he will fuck you. You might not know it right away (though Cheney's smirk'll be a tip off; get him too) or exactly how, but you will have been fucked. Don't expect dinner and flowers before or after.

He will not willingly step down, he will not go on his own, and he might not go quietly (gods, I hope not...), but he (and his team) have to go. He still has 2 years left in his term and if you believe he gives two choleric shits what Congress and the people think, you're almost as far removed from reality as he is."

Harper's Talking Impeachment

2006-12-17T11:32:00.000-08:00

From January 2007's issue of Harper's Magazine:

"Democracy is born in dirt, nourished by the digging up and turning over of as much of it as can be brought within reach of a television camera or a subpoena. We can't "lay out a new agenda for America" unless we know which America we're talking about, the one that embodies the freedoms of a sovereign people or the one made to fit the requirements of a totalitarian state....

Like it or not, and no matter how unpleasant or impolitic the proceedings, the spirit of the law doesn't allow the luxury of fastidious silence or discreet abstention....

The Constitution doesn't serve at the pleasure of Representative Pelosi any more than it answers to the whim of President Bush, and by taking "off the table" the mess of an impeachment proceeding, the lady from California joins the president in his distaste for such an unclean thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Rightly understood, democracy is an uproar, the argument meant to be blunt, vigilant, and fierce, not, as the purveyors of our respectable opinion would have it, a matter of liveried civil servants passing one another polite synonyms on silver trays."

Daily Kos has more on this article HERE

CNN's Jack Cafferty Thinks Not Impeaching is 'Strange'

2006-12-11T22:18:00.000-08:00

From tonight's Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty said:

"Jack Cafferty: "How you doing, Wolf? On her way out the door last week, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It's strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn't the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors.

"And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, 'off the table.' It's all kind of strange. The incoming House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, had earlier sponsored a bill to investigate grounds for possible impeachment. Now, Conyers has backed off and agreed with Pelosi to rule out impeachment. Jesse Jackson wrote last week that even if Conyers won't consider impeachment of President Bush, he, quote, 'has a duty to convene serious hearings,' unquote, on the President's claims and what Jackson calls abuses to our Constitution.

"A poll that was taken right before the midterm elections showed that 28 percent of Americans say impeachment of President Bush should be a top priority. 23 percent say it should be a lower priority. And 44 percent say it shouldn't happen at all."

The Nexus Between Oversight and Impeachment.

2006-12-08T11:36:00.000-08:00

By Kagro X of Daily Kos
-------------------------

We're all for oversight. Am I right about that?

Let's talk, procedurally and mechanically, about what that means, and why impeachment is inherently a part of all of it.

I know, I know. You didn't want to hear any more about it. But the door's open, and this deserves some attention, if only for purposes of academic discussion.

Here's why:

Though we're all looking forward to some robust oversight, we've got some very basic questions we need to ask about whether and how this is going to happen.

In fact, the questions are exactly that: whether and how this is going to happen?

In the course of his six years in the presidency, George W. Bush's "administration" has forced us to confront questions about the basic nature of our constitutional government that most of us thought were well-settled, and not in favor of the position Bush has been taking on them.

Does the president have the "inherent power" to refuse to faithfully execute the laws, as provided in the Oath of Office, if he believes the law is unconstitutional? What if -- and you'll have to follow me around the circle here, because that's where he's taking us -- he believes the law is unconstitutional because he believes it's unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws that restrict his "inherent powers?"

You can pretty quickly see where this sort of hyper-aggressive legal theorizing can take you, if you're inclined to press it. And all indications are that they are so inclined:

"[W]hen it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

As you can see, that threat goes straight to the heart of the promise of Congressional oversight. The problem is that there's really no independent Constitutional or legal reason why executive branch officials would be compelled to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Congress has only very limited investigatory powers, which the courts typically limit to oversight that has a direct or at least colorable relation to proposed legislation.

But it's not that I expect the courts to find that the required nexus between the proposed oversight and possible legislative solutions is lacking. It's more than that. It's the inherent weakness of the mechanism on which we're relying: the much-vaunted "subpoena power."

Pelosi was asked what was most important about regaining majority status. "Subpoena power," she said.

So, let's look at the mechanics of subpoena power. In its investigative capacity, Congress has adopted for itself the use of a subpoena power that's roughly analogous to that more commonly seen in the judicial and law enforcement system, in which government prosecutors (employees of the executive branch) leverage the power of the judicial branch (in the form of its ability to sentence those brought before it for contempt, should they defy the subpoenas) to ensure compliance with the demands made.

But Congress is not the executive branch. Nor is it the judicial. Its independent enforcement powers are limited to only the most obscure and archaic procedure -- "inherent contempt" -- which hasn't been exercised since 1935, and with good reason: this procedure itself requires a trial before Congress. Not a particularly helpful substitute when you're trying to avoid a trial before Congress in the first place.

Instead, Congress depends for its enforcement powers on the executive branch. If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you face the possibility of charges of contempt of Congress, pursuant to the adoption of articles by whichever house is charging you. But those charges are not self-executing. In other words, they're a request that charges be brought. In order to be effective, those charges still have to be prosecuted in court, and that's up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's an employee of the "unitary executive," of course, and reports to the Attorney General.

So if you're conducting oversight of, say, the NSA spying program, and you want answers from Gonzales regarding the program's legality, and you subpoena him and he tells you to take a flying leap, what do you do?

You could try going to court, but not only will that pretty much run out the clock, but the courts are quite likely to tell you, "What are you crying to us for? You have your remedy. If you're too chicken to use it, that's your problem." They may well hand it right back to Congress as a "political question," and refuse to resolve it. After all, tied up in that question is yet another: should the legislative branch be able to leverage the judicial in order to force the executive to submit to its will?

Long story short: This is not an issue that can be resolved on moral, ethical, legal, or political grounds alone. It can be ignored for any or all of those reasons, but not resolved.

That's why I'm not requiring anyone to make up their mind today, on the spot. Just consider that there's a legitimate role for impeachment to play, even in the background, but that it must be "on the table" in order to do so. And here I would note that saying it's "off the table" does not by itself take it out of consideration. That's not what this discussion is about, and I think we can discuss the necessity of having this weapon in our hip pocket without necessarily resolving whether or not individual players in Congress did or didn't say it quite the right way.

Instead, it's about contemplating the place of impeachment as a procedural tool. Just as it's the threat of a filibuster that ultimately provides the "power" that makes the "Senatorial hold" possible, so is impeachment the power that makes Congressional subpoena power possible for use against the executive branch.

And we all want that, right?

From Jerome a Paris: Impeachment: you think the world is not watching?

2006-12-07T14:10:00.000-08:00

From Daily Kos:

Impeachment: you think the world is not watching?
by Jerome a Paris
Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:02:51 PM PST
So it's not politically convenient to try to impeach?

So there will be no price paid for being the worst president ever, apart for the promise of the judgement of history?

So Democrats also think it's okay to go invade another country, to get several hundred thousand of its inhabitants killed, to proudly practice and promote torture around the world, to tear up the Geneva Conventions and a whole load of international treaties, and to go grab random foreigners around the world to put them in Guantanamo and throw away the key?

So not only was Bush reelected with a real majority, but the opposition essentially says that what he did is not so profoundly illegal that it deserves to be duly sanctioned?

Way to go.

The world is watching. And it will not forget. Our current leaders may be cowards, but they won't always be there. Haven't you noticed how being anti-American makes you a popular politician and makes you win elections around the world?

Fear will not be enough when the whole world is convinced that America will not correct its current ways, and that the problem is not just the current administration.

Send 500,000 Impeachment Letters to Nancy Pelosi NOW!

2006-12-06T20:21:00.000-08:00

"More than 50,000 telegrams poured in on Capitol Hill today, so many, Western Union was swamped. Most of them demanded impeaching Mr. Nixon."
--John Chancellor, NBC News Special Report on October 20, 1973

Fax or snail mail the letter below or your own variation to:

FAX: 202-225-8259

Nancy Pelosi
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

District Office:

450 Golden Gate Ave.
14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

Email is okay, but letters and faxes are more physically imposing.

CC a copy to your congressman too. You can find their address here: http://www.house.gov

Post this around to other boards and send it to you friends, and let's see if we can get something going.

Speaker Pelosi,

The American people elected a Democratic majority to restore checks and balances, the rule of law, and our reputation as a law-abiding country in the world community. These cannot be accomplished unless President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached. Their impeachable offenses dwarf those that led to proceedings against President Clinton and President Andrew Jonson, and the threatened proceeding against President Richard Nixon combined. The offenses below are already supported with evidence in the public record, including admissions of guilt. It is likely that investigations prior to impeachment would turn up even more.

IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY FOR:

* Lying to the American people, Congress, and the world about the threat from Iraq & need for war.

* War of aggression against Iraq, which posed no threat to US.

* Death of over 600,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 S troops in unnecessary war.

* Exploiting 9/11 for political gain and for war to benefit oil companies and other cronies.

* Canceling Iraq’s oil contracts with foreign companies and giving them to American corporations and restructuring Iraq’s oil industry to their specification in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

* Awarding no-bid contracts to cronies for rebuilding and oil exploitation in Iraq.

* Inciting animosity toward the US by attacking Iraq and falsely claiming it was part of “War on Terror.”

* Authorizing the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Convention and US law and against the advice of the uniformed military.

* Participating in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti and attempting to do so in Venezuela.

* Failure to fully cooperate with 9/11 Commission and joint congressional inquiry, and refusal to comply with Freedom of Information Act in other areas as well.

* Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

* Issuing signing statements that contradict the plain meaning of legislation, including on issues of torture.

* Denying Americans and others habeas corpus rights even after Supreme Court ruled against it.

* Coercing government employees to lie to Congress and the American people about the cost of Medicare drug benefit, global warning, and toxic hazard of NYC after 9/11.

* Failure to provide timely aid to Hurricane Katrina victims and appointing someone with no experience to run FEMA.

* Barring Americans who disagree with the president from public events paid for with taxpayer money, and forcibly removing some with private security posing as Secret Service agents.

Listen to the American people so we can be confident we have a democracy again.

Sincerely,

Is Impeachment Really Off the Table (Part 2)?

2006-12-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Is impeachment really off the table?

OpEdNews asks the question, HERE.