Article 1: "Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq."
This one would be highly unlikely to meet the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" standard as set out by the founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution. What the Bush Administration did in this case was slimy, misleading, and dishonest, but how does it rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors?" I don't see it. Also, what does Kucinich mean by "Secret Propaganda Campaign?" That type of language frankly does not strike me as serious, and tends t undercut the serious articles of impeachment. Too bad Rep. Kucinich can't stay focused, without resorting to overheated rhetoric
Article II: Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Same comments as #1, except in this case the offense was truly heinous; not "high crimes and misdemeanors," but a recklessly and knowingly irresponsible effort to conflate a horrendous, traumatic disaster (9/11) with a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with it (Iraq). It's utterly despicable, but almost certainly not impeachable (unfortunately).
Article III: Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
This one's more ambiguous, as most intelligence agencies around the world thought that Iraq possessed WMD. In hindsight, we know what the true story was, but we didn't at the time. This article is not serious.
Article IV: Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Perhaps, but that's not a "high crime and misdemeanor." Also, this one's a judgment call, just as the Berlin blockade, the North Korean invasion of South Korea, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were considered by many people - including President Truman and President Johnson -- to be "imminent threats" to the United States in their day.
Article V: Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
This one's at least interesting, as it gets at the roles of Congress and the White House as laid out in the constitution, particularly with regard to war making powers. But "high crimes and misdemeanors?" I strongly doubt it would pass that test. Also, if Congress had felt so strongly about this, it could have cut off funds for the war at any time since March 2003. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done, and a two-thirds vote in both houses to override an (almost certain) presidential veto, it didn't do so.
Article VI: Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114.
Here's a summary of the resolution. The question is, did the Bush Administration violate any or all of the resolution. Given that the resolution "Authorize[d] the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," I'm not sure that the Bush Administration violated the resolution. My guess is that this would turn into a "shades of gray" matter of interpretation and wouldn't rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" level.
Article VII: Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
When was the last time we declared war? After Pearl Harbor, as far as I can recall. Next.
Article VIII: Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Did the Bush Administration violate the UN Charter by invading Iraq? That's a legitimate question and certainly could be addressed in impeachment hearings. Realistically speaking, however, I strongly doubt that Congress would vote to convict President Bush on this ground. If so, then a lot of U.S. wars the past 60 years could be considered as violating the UN Charter, and those presidents should have been impeached as well. I'm highly dubious.
Article IX: Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.
How on earth is this a "high crime and misdemeanor?" Was it all the Bush Administration's fault? Is improperly equipping our troops a crime? If so, then I guess not having sufficient medical care or equipment for soldiers in the Revolutionary War, Spanish-American War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc. were impeachable offenses. I don't think so.
Article X: Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes.
Huh?
Article XI: Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq.
Whether or not this is the right thing to do (and I don't think it is), where's the "high crime and misdemeanor" here? I don't see it.
Article XII: Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources.
Ditto to my previous comment. Also, it's highly debatable whether the Iraq war was started primarily, or even largely, for this purpose.
Article XIIII: Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries.
Where's the "High crime and misdemeanor? Got me.
Article XIV: Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Finally, something that has the potential to actually rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" level. This one's definitely a serious charge that Congress should investigate for possible impeachment and conviction.
Article XV: Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq.
This is truly heinous, but I'm not confident it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the constitution. I think it's worth talking about, though; the fact is, U.S. contractors in Iraq have literally gotten away with murder (and torture, and other abuses). Something's really, really wrong here.
Article XVI: Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors.
This reflects gross incompetence at best, corruption at worst. Does it rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors." I strongly doubt it, but it's probably worth putting out there for consideration.
Article XVII: Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives.
A 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court addressed this serious issue of habeus corpus and how far the U.S. constitution extends to foreign nationals. With regard to indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge, that's completely unacceptable and unconstitutional. This one might rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" level, although I'd point out that FDR might have been impeached for his interment of Japanese-Americans under this one. Should he have been? What do you think?
Article XVIII: Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.
This one's definitely a possible "high crime and misdemeanor," as it involves Article II, Section 3 of the constitution, which directs the President "to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Torture is against U.S. and international law. This one seems pretty clear to me; impeachment, conviction, maybe even war crimes charges are applicable here.
Article XIX: Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture.
Ditto to the previous article.
Article XX: Imprisoning Children.
I'm not sure exactly what this is referring to, so I'll refrain from commenting.
Article XXI: Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government.
This is not a "high crime and misdemeanor," but a difference about the perceived threat from Iran.
Article XXII: Creating Secret Laws.
I'm not sure exactly what this is referring to, so I'll refrain from commenting.
Article XXIII: Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Posse Comitatus "generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress." I strongly doubt that Congress could find Bush/Cheney guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" on this charge.
Article XXIV: Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "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." Spying on American citizens without a court order seems to violate this amendment. This is a serious charge that potentially rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Article XXV: Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens.
Similar reasoning to the previous article.
Article XXVI: Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements.
In my mind, this is one of the most serious articles. What President Bush has done with his "signing statements" has blatantly violated the constitutional separation of powers. Under the constitution, the president can either sign a bill into law or veto that bill. He cannot sign the bill while simultaneously saying "I'll obey this part, I won't obey this part, I interpret the law to mean what I think it means, etc." Definite "high crimes and misdemeanors" territory here.
Article XXVII: Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply.
This one's serious, but as far as I can tell it largely comes down to the ever-contentious, never-resolved issue of "executive privilege." I tend to believe that this doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Article XXVIII: Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice.
Good luck with this one, although I'd definitely continue looking into the dismissal of U.S. attorneys by the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. Something's really rotten here.
Article XXIX: Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I don't know enough about this one to comment intelligently. Any thoughts?
Article XXX: Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare.
This falls into the "kitchen sink" category. Focus, Dennis!
Article XXXI: Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency.
Ditto. Anyone got some extra Ritalin?
Article XXXII: Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change.
The politicization of science and the ungodly influence of oil companies has been one of the worst aspects in the Bush Administration. High crimes and misdemeanors, though? I strongly doubt it, although maybe it should be.
Article XXXIII: Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
The Bush Administration definitely screwed up royally prior to 9/11, ignoring clear indications that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States. I strongly doubt that this rises beyond "utter incompetence" to "high crimes and misdemeanors," however.
Article XXXIV: Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001.
High crimes and misdemeanors? I don't think so.
Article XXXV: Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.
Ditto.
Now once the impeachment is in place, War Crimes are possible too.... the cover provided by their present positions in government goes away if they are impeached.... along with pensions and all sorts of other perks which they would expect now.... Plus some of this can absolutely start as the typical "October Surprise" later in the year when many of the Repugs who are in this up to their necks anyhow will be even more vulnerable.... by them killing the bill now it starts the clock ticking right on schedule.
So much for American values.
There are several other interviews on that show of similar content as well..... Mark did an amazing job of getting to the right people..... But then he did work for the Judiciary Committee as a staff lawyer.
If impeachment is not used as a tool to reel the Bush administration back in, to give the Legislative branch more firepower and legitimacy in its efforts to use the Judicial branch to enforce subpoenas for testimony (remember, former executive branch employees are simply ignoring Congressional subpoenas as if they're worth less than toilet paper), and to prevent the pardoning of these criminals before they leave office ... then we might as well amend the Constitution to remove impeachment as a remedy.
This is the most criminal, law-breaking, un-Constitutional government in probably the history of the country. Impeachment is the only remedy.
Good on Kucinich for standing up for the Constitution. He's absolutely right.
But I must admit I am completely dismayed by the way most elected Democrats in the Congress are just ignoring impeachment as a weapon while they get stonewalled at every turn by 'state secret' and 'executive privilege' invocations and while the administration flagrantly violates law after law after law. I mean at some point, somebody in the Democratic leadership needs to read the Constitution and realize that they are given one (1) weapon to rein in an out-of-control executive branch.
This relates directly to Kucinich's Article XIV.
Also, FWIW, I do think that the most serious Articles are II and III, along with torture, warrantless wiretapping, and propaganda program, and rendition. Impeachment was always seen as a political tool meant to rein in an out-of-control executive for egregious political conduct. Lying a country into war by abusing the intelligence apparatus of the country certainly is the worst political conduct I can conceivably imagine, short of a coup or an attempt at martial law.