[Fredkc]

Ok, that YouTube was posted Oct. 2008. However, I have seen it before, and it is quite old. The fact that he mentions two things are a give away:
1. Talk of the Democrats getting control of the House.
2. Denny Hastert being in charge of the House (Speaker of..)

These two place this as being late 2006, before November 7th, though.

Now, on with the fun:

RDburns;
but what about the rest of the world!! That freebie card would not extend outside of the US boarder. Not unless there was some other freebie card he obtained, from the UN for example.

Map;
this is what I think... nothing will happen till hes out of office...
once hes out, there has been word whistle blowers will come out big time ratting him out..

I have posted my thoughts on this one several times here, with lots of verbage as to why, so I will cut it short:
No sitting President will EVER hold a previous one for trial, either due to domestic or world court prosecution, no matter what he's done.
Just won't happen, sorry.


Next: Whistleblowers
There is absolutely no need for them. The crimes are well documented.

Item 1:

“We can debate the wisdom of that, we can debate why the President may have done it, but in my view, the President committed a crime, and we have to deal with that as citizens. And unfortunately, you have to deal with that as members of Congress. It strikes an alarming circumstance when the President can go into a press conference and announce that he has violated a federal statute 30 times, and promises to continue to do so until someone stops him.

That is the most remarkable admission that I have ever heard from a President of the United States…” Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley.

You see, here you have an admission, on tape, and in writing of having committed 30 counts of one crime, and also another one even more to the point of impeachment. Up until he made this admission, he had consistently told the public that any and all wiretapping being done was according to law. He went so far as to say, "if we are tapping anyone in this country, there is a warrant to cover it."

That was a blatant lie, told to thwart justice. (I'll come back to that)


Item 2:
Again, in a National Journal column of March 15, 2007 titled: Internal Affairs
Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales
It is reported that in a legal Congressional investigation into the domestic spying issue, the Atty Gen (Gonzales) and the President issued directives that made this legal investigation impossible.

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

So once again you have the President, acting to thwart the pursuit of justice. (I'll come back to that)


(Ok, I'm back to that)
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - It's not just some flowery term. It is a hold-over from Common Law. Basically it is using the power of your office to prevent, or subvert justice.

"The President is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - Jon Roland, Constitution Society

Now, it might be said that his chief purpose in lying about domestic surveillance in Item 1, was necessary in order to "deceive an enemy". But the actions taken, if provable, in Item 2 are very different. This was a legal, investigation ordered by Congress. There was precedent for people of much lesser security clearance having access to everything this investigation was denied. And that it took place after:

• Gonzales became aware that he would face scrutiny in this inquiry, and
• He then spoke to the President about shutting the inquiry down.

Deceiving the enemy was not a factor here. Neither were national security concerns.

So now we have:

• An admission to 30 counts of knowingly violating the law,
• 2 counts of a textbook definition of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors".

Then:
"In August 2002, there was the infamous torture memo, put out by the justice department, that stated that the President could indeed order gov’t officials to violate federal law."
This is a baldface lie, even a child could see through. Consider the oath of office the President takes:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No person abiding by this oath can even pretend that includes the authority to order subordinates to break the law.

Additionally, there is the Geneva Convention, which this country signed as a treaty. Treaties are in fact some of the most potent and dangerous instruments this nation codifies. Here is why:

Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In short, and in english, what that says is, when we sign and ratify a treaty, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land". It automatically over-writes any judicial decision, any state law, any federal law, AND any part of the Constitution itself!

Geneva Convention says that you will treat all prisoners as fully eligible prisoners of war, unless a tribunal of the signatories is convened making some formal exception. The President deciding to call some group of people "Enemy Combatants" has absolutely no effect on this.


So now we have:

• An admission to 30 counts of knowingly violating the law,
• 2 counts of a textbook definition of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors".
• And a clear Geneva Conv. violation which is most likely cause for war crimes trials.

And...

RSF;
But I remember correctly HS Pelosi just after winning back the House and Senate Majority, said "Impeachment's (of Bush2) not on the table..."

Yup! They sure as hell did!
Even before all the votes were counted they had back-stabbed the electorate. What I just outlined above amounts to four impeachable acts. Two of which the President himself is on tape and in writing admitting to!

They decided not to for two reasons:
Reason 1.
They decided that if they impeached, their approval with the people would tumble. Never mind the people voted as they did with the idea of impeachment in mind. They decided not to risk it.... In favor of...

Just what they did. That was to spend the next 2 years using everything they couyld to run down the Republicans, while taking great care never to birng to light enough evidence that they would be forced to impeach. In short, they chose to run out the clock with cheap shots, trying to gain as big advantage for the 2008 elections as they could, the people's business, and their oath of office be damned!

Reason 2.
The Democratic members of "The Gang Of Eight": Harry Reid. Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman.
You see, any impeachment trial would include a defense. And in that defense it would come out that the NOW-current Dem. leadership all knew! Not only about the domestic spying, and had given a consensus of the group to continue the program; but the "torture memos" the admin was acting under as their fig leaf of legality as well. They all knew and did nothing!

They were,according to what I've read, constantly reminded that to disclose the illegal acts going on, to the public, or even to any other member of Congress, would see them in jail. So, to avoid having to face the possibility of that crime, they kept silent of greater crimes committed. And couldn't you can just hear the editorials on this, "Oh but NOW they want to impeach for the very same acts they condoned?"

But notice that list.
It was Pelosi who took impeachment off the table.
It was Rockefeller who wrote the FISA bill including Telco immunity for domestic spying.
Make sense now?

Finally:

RSF;
As I understood it, If the US Congress would have impeached Bush2 while in office, then any and all charges brought against him once out of office could NOT be overturned through the Presidential Pardon process. Meaning Pres Elect Obama would not be able to Pardon this former President if Indicted.

Actually the Constitution forbids either the President, or the Vice-President from pardoning the other, so long as they are under impeachment.

Article 2, Section 2: "... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Again another place where the Democrats decided to duck the job, lest one voter out there get mad at them.

Both Conyer's case against the VP, and Kucinich's articles on Bush should have been carried forward. It was the Democratic Congressional leadership which halted both. So, as things stand, the current President, and VP can still pardon themselves out the back door of the White House on Jan. 19th, 2009

Bush pardons Cheney, then resigns. Cheney takes the oath and then pardons Bush.
Next morning as Obama takes the oath, they both run like hell.