The movement to impeach George W. Bush is
a series of actions and commentary within the public and private spheres
voicing support for the impeachment of United States President George W.
The phrase is also used in a broader sense to
refer to a social movement and public opinion poll data that include both
Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the
impeachment of President Bush. The reasons offered for Bush's impeachment
include concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the controversial warrantless electronic
surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency.
Polls in 2007 have shown public support ranging between 39–45% in favor of
impeaching Bush, and between 46–55% opposed. The House of Representatives
Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush,
and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so. The
Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of
resolving to impeach him.
On June 9, 2008 Dennis Kucinich gave official notice of his intention
to introduce 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush to the U.S.
House of Representatives. On June
10, 2008, as Congressman Robert Wexler joined Kucinich as co-sponsor of the
resolution, Kucinich officially
introduced his resolution to a near-empty House chamber. The Clerk took just
under four hours to read the resolution into the record. As soon as the
House Clerk finished reading the resolution in the early morning of 11 June,
Kucinich himself moved to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee.
The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the
impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25.
To impeach the President of the United States, a majority of the United
States House of Representatives must agree to pass a resolution that alleges
the President committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." This impeachment resolution is also commonly called an
"Article of Impeachment" and spells out in detail the charges against the
The House of Representatives then exhibits these
Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate since the latter body
has the "sole Power" to "try all impeachments."
If the U.S. Senate, by two-thirds vote, finds the President "guilty" on any
Article of Impeachment, then the President is removed from office and the
Senate next votes on whether or not to disqualify the ex-President from
holding further office under the United States. Although already convicted
by the Senate, the ex-President is still liable to indictment and trial
under regular criminal statutes for any federal crimes he may have
committed. If the U.S. Senate fails to reach a two-thirds majority for
conviction, the President is acquitted and the trial is over.
In the House, the Judiciary Committee is the typical committee to where
impeachment resolutions are referred. The Judiciary Committee has formally
reported to the full House of Representatives impeachment resolutions
against four Presidents: John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill
Clinton. Of those four Presidents, only Johnson and Clinton were impeached
by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate.
Nixon resigned after the Judiciary Committee
recommended impeachment but before the full House considered the report.
(Nixon resigned apparently after being told that his impeachment and
conviction were near certainties by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a
conservative Senator who ran for President in 1964.)
The President's pardon power does not extend to "Cases of Impeachment", as
explicitly stated in Article Two of the United States Constitution. Thus a
President may not intervene in either the House impeachment or the Senate
Dispute exists about whether the Impeachment
exception to the pardon power extends to cases brought in the regular court
system after Senate conviction.
Proponents of impeaching Bush assert that one or more of his actions qualify
as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can
constitutionally be impeached.
This section collates a list of pro-impeachment advocates' rationales as
suggested by commentators, legal analysts, members of the Democratic Party,
the Center for Constitutional Rights
and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a
legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an
impeachable offense (other than treason or bribery). Therefore, this list is
not necessarily accurate.
Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine
if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
NSA warrantless surveillance
In the context of the "War
on Terrorism", Bush ordered the wiretapping of certain
international calls to and from the U.S. without a warrant. The program's
critics contend that it violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the
past (e.g. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee).
They also allege that it violates the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution,
which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including
electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles
published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.
In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as
the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military
Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in
the Constitution, to bypass FISA.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme
Court majority held that neither the AUMF nor the president's role as
Commander-in-Chief trumps explicit federal law, in this case the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
In January 2006, the Congressional Research Service released two legal
analyses concluding that:
...no court has held squarely that the
Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on
that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress
does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA
surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law.
In addition, the American Bar
Association, in February 13, 2006, issued a statement denouncing the
warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing Bush of
exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opines
that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not
compatible with the law.
David Kris and five former FISC
judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their
doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA.
Aside from these organisations, others (see
below) have stated that the Bush administration's justification of the
program, using its interpretation of presidential power, overthrows the
Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of
the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws
be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority,
"To make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
The Senate Committee voted along party lines,
and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.
Former House member Elizabeth Holtzman (who played a key role in
House impeachment proceedings against Nixon), John Dean (Nixon's former
counsel) and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that by authorizing
warrantless domestic wiretapping, President Bush violated the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act without legal basis, constituting a felony and
as such an impeachable offense.
On August 17, 2006, the case, ACLU v. NSA, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the Bush administration’s program to
monitor the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without warrants was
unconstitutional and must be stopped.
It was the first ruling by a federal court to
strike down the National Security Agency surveillance program. In her
ruling, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor dismissed the government’s argument that the
"has been granted the inherent power to
violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth
Amendments of the Constitution, itself."
In the conclusion of the ruling, Justice Warren
was quoted from the case U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967) where he wrote:
Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those
values and ideas which set this Nation apart…It would indeed be ironic if,
in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of…those
liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.
In response to this decision, on September 20, 2006, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence as both committees approved H.R. 5825, the
"Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act."
According to the ACLU, that bill, authored by
Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) would give the president unprecedented
power and authorize the warrantless surveillance program conducted by the
National Security Agency. Some
civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives
the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.
Bush notified Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless
wiretapping at the time of the decision. However, they were not totally
informed, nor were they allowed to take notes or confer with others to
assess the possible ramifications of this program.
2003 invasion of Iraq
Constitutionality of invasion
In February and March 2003, John Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a
coalition of US soldiers, their parents, and members of Congress in John Doe
I v. President Bush, a
constitutional challenge to Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent
a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in
court that Bush's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War
Powers Clause of the US Constitution.
As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonifaz has
argued publicly and in writing that Bush should be impeached for this.
However, Bonifaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and, in March
2003, the dismissal was upheld on appeal.
Regarding the dismissal, Bonifaz said:
"They’re not supposed to sideline... Courts
cannot shirk from responsibility when it looks like a political battle."
Regarding the affirmation of the dismissal, the
First Circuit Court of Appeals held:
"...the text of the October Resolution
itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an
'authorization' of such a war."
Francis Boyle, a professor of international law
at the University of Illinois also uses this argument as reason in his Draft
Justification for invasion
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq
— the continued possession and development of weapons of mass destruction
and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all
official reports. A report
by the Defense Department in 2007 conclusively stated the claimed working
relationship with Al Qaeda did not exist.
As the Washington Post described it:
"the intelligence community's prewar
consensus [was] that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only
limited contacts, and ... that reports of deeper links were based on
dubious or unconfirmed information."
The Bush administration advocated that this was
due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear
that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely
disputed, in intelligence
reports which should have been seen by the Bush administration. An in-depth
investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate
Intelligence Committee has been frustrated.
A New York Times editorial states:
Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel)
tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced
him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a
Supporters of impeachment argue that the
administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary
information in constructing their case for the war.
The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo
are used to substantiate that allegation.
Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents
and a resolution of inquiry. A
report by the Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view.
It states that the Bush administration advocated
that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological
laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed
evidence to the contrary at that time.
"The three-page field report and a 122-page
final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and
shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence
officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons
By Article VI of the Constitution, Senate-ratified treaties such as the U.N.
Charter are "the supreme Law of the Land."
John Conyers, Robert Parry and
Marjorie Cohn– professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law,
executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S.
representative to the executive committee of the American Association of
Jurists – assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of
aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and
therefore a war crime.
Also, Kofi Annan called the war in Iraq a
violation of the UN Charter and therefore "illegal."
A war of aggression refers to any war not
initiated out of self-defence or sanctioned by the UN. Such a violation of
international law would constitute an impeachable offense according to
Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin
and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.
Unlawful combatant status
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration advocated
that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as "unlawful
combatants". They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the
Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent
tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention,
Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established.
The American Bar Association, Human Rights
Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have
dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with
U.S. and international law.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a majority of the U.S.
Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions
applies to detainees in the Global War on Terrorism.
Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to provide a legal
framework for the designation of "unlawful combatants", their detention, and
trial through military commission.
This was described as unconstitutional by
several Senators during the floor debates, so it has not changed the views
of those advocating impeachment on these grounds.
The CIA has "rendered" suspected terrorists,
such as Maher Arar, to other countries. Critics accuse them of doing
this in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting
torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights".
Then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to
extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than
not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement.
However, the Convention against torture states:
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler")
or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to
Commentators, including the United Nations and
Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as
practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.
Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of
international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,
whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment
A report on May 19, 2006, by the United Nations Convention Against
Torture concluded that the US should not send suspects to countries
where they face a risk of torture, since that would violate international
Treatment of detainees
As part of the war on terrorism, several memos
were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment
of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate
enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva
Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.
In addition, a new definition of torture was
issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not
fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.
Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that
policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down
from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the
Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate
non-coercive interrogation standards.
Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration
repeatedly assured critics that the publicized cases were incidents, and
Bush later stated that:
"The United States of America does not
torture. And that's important for people around the world to
The administration adopted the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 to address the multitude of incidents of detainee
abuse. However, in his signing statement, Bush made clear that he reserved
the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.
Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report
denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.
Conyers has advocated investigating these abuses to see if they
violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while
Boyle, Holtzman and Veterans For Peace hold that violating these laws is
grounds for impeachment.
An article in the Progressive supports the view
that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an
impeachable offense too.
Several legal analysts — such as Holtzman, Marjorie Cohn, and
Human Rights First — have advocated that writing the so-called
"torture memos," not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal
challenges involving war crimes
under the command responsibility.
This view was confirmed when the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, the Third
Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners) applies to all
detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to
try suspects were violating the law.
The Court reaffirmed that those involved in
mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.
Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring
the Geneva Conventions the Bush administration — including Bush himself, as
Commander-in-Chief — is culpable for war crimes, and as such that
constitutes an impeachable offense.
On May 19, 2006, the United Nations Convention against Torture issued a
report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment"
of detainees, since such treatment, according to the report, violates
international law. It also calls for cessation of the US-termed "enhanced
interrogation" techniques, as the UN sees these methods as a form of
torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of
which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be
Reviewing the book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on
Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer,
The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008, that:
Red Cross investigators concluded last year
in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation
methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could
make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war
and that the techniques applied to Abu Zubaydah
were “categorically” torture,....
Commutation of Lewis
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted of perjury and
obstruction of justice in connection to the investigation of the leak of the
identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, was sentenced to 30 months in
prison and a fine of $250,000, which he paid with $400 in additional fees.
While Libby's appeal in United States v. Libby
was still pending, the presiding judge, Reggie Walton, denied his request
for a stay and ordered Libby to begin his prison sentence.
Following that decision, Bush commuted Libby's sentence, eliminating the
prison term on the basis that the sentence was too harsh and would have
lasting effects on Libby's career.
In response, representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) stated he would file a
resolution censuring President George W. Bush for the "egregious and
politically motivated commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence."
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Marjorie Cohn, and
Elizabeth de la Vega suggested it to be an impeachable offense.
According to Dan Froomkin the President
was within his prerogative, but that when commutation was used in matters in
which the president himself may be involved, impeachment was warranted.
Alleged declassification for
On April 6, 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury
investigation, stating that Libby had testified that Bush authorized the
disclosure of select portions of the then classified National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.
The position of the Bush administration is that
a Presidentially authorized release of material, even if it does not go
through the formal declassification procedure, is not a "leak", because
Presidents are authorized to de-classify material and the release of
de-classified material is not leaking.
This contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that
leaking classified information is unacceptable.
According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:
“Defendant (Libby) testified that this July
8 meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience
when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively
declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be
Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg
Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation —
that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by
opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an
obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US
government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the
CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.
Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his
allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by
some as an impeachable offense.
Alleged politicization of the
United States attorney offices
In March 2007 it became known that eight United States Attorneys were
dismissed. The Bush administration has issued changing and contradictory
statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who
ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.
Congressmen investigating these dismissals
stated that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials contradicts
internal Department memos and e-mails.
Because of that, and the uncommon nature of these firings,
critics suggest ulterior motives.
Among them, Elizabeth Holtzman and
Cynthia L. Cooper wrote that:
"we may be witnessing criminal acts of
obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government."
They allege that the attorneys were fired as
retribution for prosecuting Republicans,
for failing to prosecute enough Democrats,
and/or for non-existent voter-fraud.
This supposed fraud led The New York Times
to the following response:
"Last week, we learned that the
administration edited a government-ordered report on voter fraud to
support its fantasy. The original version concluded that among experts
"there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little
polling place fraud." But the publicly released version said, "There is
a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud." It's hard to see
that as anything but a deliberate effort to mislead the public."
The article continues to suggest that
emphasizing voter-fraud facilitates regulations, such as voter ID laws,
which discriminate against the "poor, the elderly, minorities and other
disenfranchised groups that tend to support Democrats." Greg Gordon for
McClatchy Newspapers concurs, commenting that it might be part of a scheme
"to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor
Republican political candidates."
The same is implied by Greg Palast in
In These Times, where he reports that Timothy Griffin, Arkansas’
new attorney general, was involved in suppressing minority voters.
The investigation has drawn attention to the prosecution and subsequent
conviction, during an election season, of Georgia Thompson for
corruption, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
immediately reversed because the prosecution's evidence was "beyond thin."
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Madison
and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating this case.
Commentators have further observed the possible connection with the Jack
Abramoff Guam investigation, which was discontinued after the chief
prosecutor for Guam, and the instigator of the indictment, Frederick A.
Black, was unexpectedly demoted and removed from office.
Schumer, other Democrats, Holtzman, Cooper, and Laurie Levenson — a Loyola
Law School professor and former federal prosecutor — compared the firings
-allegedly to influence investigations- to the Saturday Night Massacre, in
which the Nixon administration fired Archibald Cox while he was
investigating the alleged misconduct by the White House in the Watergate
For the involvement in these alleged wrongdoings
and the subsequent cover-up Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman,
Cynthia L. Cooper, and Thom Hartmann have suggested that impeachment
proceedings are warranted.
The alleged responsibility of the Bush administration in the
mishandling of Hurricane Katrina
has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters,
Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure
by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens.
And as such they hold that the allegations of
incompetence amount to an impeachable offense.
The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal
responsibility lies with the local authorities.
In a September 28, 2005 article in the
Washington Times, then-FEMA
head Michael Brown said accusations of inadequate handling of the
disaster should be addressed to Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux
Expanded executive powers
Bush has asserted broad executive powers, attributing them to his position
as Commander-in-Chief and to the war on terrorism.
These have been used to justify policies
connected with the war in Iraq. Constitutional law expert Glenn Greenwald
attributes Bush's interpretation of the authority of the president to a
series of legal memos by John Yoo, identifies this expansive
interpretation as the common thread shared by the other Bush controversies,
and indicates that this interpretation is based on combining the powers of
all three branches of government in the single person of the President, and
is therefore the diametric opposite of the text and the Founding Fathers'
intended meaning of the Constitution.
Holtzman, Dean, De la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and
the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional
or other legal limitations on such war powers.
In the Draft Impeachment Resolution, Boyle advocates that this is an
John Nichols of The Nation has
"if Bush and Cheney are not held
accountable, this administration will hand off to its successors a
toolbox of powers greater than any executive has ever held -- more
authority, concentrated in fewer hands, than the Founders could have
conceived or would have allowed."
Political views and actions
Democrats in Congress
John Conyers, who had previously advocated the impeachment of
George W. Bush, called for an investigation of the President in
2005.On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial
meeting to discuss the Downing Street Memo and to consider grounds for
impeachment. Dozens of members of Congress, former Ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst
Ray McGovern participated.
On December 20, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at
Conyers' request, filed its report. 
Regarding this report, Conyers makes several allegations favoring
impeachment on his blog.
Conyers filed a resolution on December 18, 2005 to create an investigative
committee to consider impeachment. His resolution gained 38 co-sponsors
before it expired at the end of the 109th Congress. He has not re-introduced
a similar resolution for the 110th Congress.
As of May 18, 2006, Conyers' current position regarding impeachment is "...
rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive
oversight of these alleged abuses."
Keith Ellison was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach
Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006
“I absolutely know and can show that (the
president) deserves it; he deserves to be impeached.”
Ellison was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives in November 2006. During the campaign and when he was named
to the House Judiciary Committee, Ellison repeatedly called for an
investigation into a possible impeachment.
In support of his candidacy, he “received a $1,000 contribution from
One of Ellison’s Republican counterparts from Minnesota, Rep. John Kline,
“Ellison's views won't matter because House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has already said impeachment is ‘off
the table.’ In all fairness to the gentleman from Minneapolis, he is a
freshman member. I understand that he was endorsed by ImpeachPAC and
supported financially. ... He probably feels that he made a commitment
and he's got to make some noise, but so what?”
On April 22, 2007 Ellison later met with
constituents, and listed new conditions for his support for impeachment
hearings, such as verifiable facts and the backing of a majority of the
On December 19, 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press
release, saying that she had
written four undisclosed legal scholars, asking if there were grounds for
impeachment. In the press release, she cited the December 16, 2005, New York
Times disclosure of Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to
monitor Americans without warrants. However, in a December 20, 2005, CNN
interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boxer stated she was not ready to call for
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has said that Bush should be impeached for
authorizing the NSA's actions.
At another unofficial hearing convened by Conyers on January 20, 2006, Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called for the committee to explore whether
Bush should face impeachment, stemming from his decision to authorize
domestic surveillance without court review. The proceedings had no legal
authority, as committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI),
rejected Democrats' requests for an inquiry.
On May 10, 2006 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicated she was
not interested in pursuing impeachment and had taken it "off the table",
reiterating this phrase on November 8, 2006.
In July 2007, Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching
Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.
On December 8, 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress),
then-Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) submitted a resolution,
H. Res. 1106, introducing articles of impeachment against President Bush,
Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice. The bill expired
along with the 109th Congress.
John Conyers brought up the subject of impeachment on the July 8,
2007 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
"We're hoping that as the cries for the
removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent,
respectively, for impeachment, that we could begin to become a little
bit more cooperative, if not even amicable, in trying to get to the
truth of these matters."
In late July 2007, Senator Russ Feingold
(D-WI) stated his intentions to introduce legislation to formally censure
the president and vice president "within days." During an appearance on
NBC's Meet the Press, Feingold stated,
"there's a lot of sentiment in the
country...for actually impeaching the President and the Vice President.
I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to
this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program",
later referring to censure as a "moderate course."
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich' major
point in the Democratic Presidential Debate on October 30, 2007 was that the
president and vice-president should be impeached for the war in Iraq.
On November 6, 2007, Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Vice
President Cheney in the House of Representatives, and is currently preparing
another impeachment resolution he says is more than 300 pages long.
In November 2007, Presidential candidate Joe Biden stated that he
will move to impeach if President Bush bombs Iran without first gaining
In December 2007, Congressman Robert Wexler started a website to
promote impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney. He has indicated
that hearings into the impeachment of Bush may be warranted as well.
In a January 6, 2008 Washington Post op-ed article entitled, "Why I Believe
Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.", former Senator and 1972
Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern wrote:
"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of
numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the
Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law.
[...] Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved
country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world".
On June 9, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), introduced a
resolution, H.Res 1258, to impeach president George W. Bush. It took him
some four hours to read his 35-article resolution out loud to a nearly empty
House floor. Most analysts said the resolution was doomed, primarily because
of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reluctance to get involved in impeachment
proceedings during a critical election period.
At the end of the evening on June 10, Kucinich
offered a motion to refer HRes 1258 to the House Judiciary Committee. On
June 11, the House voted 251-166 to send the resolution to the Committee.
On July 14, 2008, Kucinich introduced a new impeachment resolution (H.Res
1345) limited to a single count. That day, Speaker Pelosi told CBS News that
"the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Rep. Kucinich
has raised in his impeachment resolution."
On July 15, 2008 the House of Representatives
voted 218-183 to send the new Kucinich Resolution to the House Judiciary
Committee. A hearing on the resolution, scheduled for the morning of July
25, 2008, under the heading of "Executive Power and Its Constitutional
Limitations", will include testimony from legal experts, members of
Congress, and military personnel.
The hearing will be broadcast live on C-Span3,
as well as on the five-station Pacifica Radio network and some affiliates,
with online streaming audio available as well.
Republicans in Congress
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has raised the possibility of impeachment
In an interview on ABC News' This Week on March
25, 2007, however, Hagel said,
“I didn't call for it, I didn't predict it.
What I was saying, I was laying out options here.”
Several weeks after Ignacio Ramos, one of the
border guards imprisoned for shooting an alleged drug dealer on the
US-Mexico border, was assaulted in prison, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
"I tell you, Mr. President, if Ignacio Ramos
or Jose Compean - especially after this assault - are murdered in
prison, or if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some
sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill."
State party conventions
On April 28, 2007, the California Democratic Convention passed a resolution
for impeachment. On May 19, 2007, the Massachusetts Democratic Convention
passed a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney.
On March 21, 2006 the New Mexico Democratic
Party, at a convention in Albuquerque, adopted a plank to their platform
saying “the Democratic Party of New Mexico supports the impeachment of
George Bush and his lawful removal from office.”
On March 24, 2007, the Vermont Democratic State Committee voted to support
JRH 15, a state legislative resolution supporting impeachment, calling for
its passage as "appropriate action."
New Hampshire House Resolution 24 (2008)
New Hampshire House Resolution 24
is a state petition to ask the United States House of Representatives to
start investigations pursuant to the impeachment of President
George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney for "high crimes
and misdemeanors," which include a host of violations of the Constitution
such as domestic spying, illegal detentions, signing statements,
electioneering, the breaking of international treaties, and war crimes. It
was introduced in 2008 to the New Hampshire House of Representatives by
Representative Betty Hall (D).
Representative Hall, a fourteen-term representative, presented the bill to
the Committee for Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs on February 19,
2008. It was ruled inexpedient to pass by a 10 to 5 vote within committee,
which passed the resolution on to the full House for a vote.
HR24 was slated to be voted upon April 16, 2008. If passed, it would have
been the first state resolution of impeachment against President George W.
Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. HR24 is currently tabled in the New
Hampshire House of Representatives. An amended resolution was approved at
the Democratic Party Convention on May 17th.
HR24 has been cited as an example of the use of impeachment found in
Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.
On February 13, 2008, New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall, an
87-year-old, 12-term State Representative announced that she would join the
Code Pink fast and would not eat until impeachment proceedings began in
On February 19, 2008, Concord, NH held hearing
on New Hampshire State H.Res.24 to Impeach Bush and Cheney.
If passed the Resolution would set in motion
Jefferson's Manual, obligating Congress to act. State Rep. Betty Hall,
14-term 87 year old state rep., introduced the resolution.
In October 2005, an anti-Iraq war organization, After Downing Street,
commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research,
which found that by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent Americans say that
President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq.
A Zogby International poll from October 29 to
November 2, 2005 confirmed this result by a margin of 53 percent to 42
percent. This was supported by 76 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of
Independents, and 29 percent of Republicans.
A protester in Boston urges rush hour drivers to 'honk' in support of the
impeachment of President George W. Bush on September 28, 2007.On
December 15, 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed that 32
percent of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush
and 35 percent would support an impeachment of Cheney.
A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42 percent of
American adults favored impeaching Bush, with 49 percent opposed.
A May 18, 2006 poll by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics showed 30 percent supported
impeaching over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, while 62
percent did not and 7 percent were unsure. 
A September 2, 2006 poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. indicated
that 30 percent of the American people supported impeachment, and 69 percent
An October 2006 Newsweek poll found support for the impeachment of President
Bush as follows: 28 percent felt that impeachment should be a "top
priority", 23 percent a "lower priority", and 44 percent that it should not
According to Angus Reid, an InsiderAdvantage poll around May 1, 2007,
found 39 percent of American voters to favor impeaching both Bush and
Cheney, and 55 percent opposed.
Analyzing these numbers, Bob Barr, who initiated the Clinton impeachment
hearings, said that "this indicates the surprising depth of dissatisfaction
On July 6, 2007, a telephone poll conducted by the American Research Group
found that 45 percent of American adults favored the US House of
Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46
percent opposing the proceedings.
In the same poll, 54 percent wanted impeachment proceedings against Cheney,
and 40 percent were opposed.
In another July 2007 pool by USA Today/Gallup, 36% of Americans felt there
was justification for congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the
President, while 62% felt that there was no justification
A November 13, 2007 nationwide poll by American Research Group found 34% of
all voters agreeing that,
"President Bush has abused his powers as
president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the
Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office",
distributed among 50% of Democrats, 18% of Republicans and 34% of
43% of all voters nationwide agreed Dick Cheney
has abused his powers as vice president to the level of impeachable offenses
and he should be impeached and removed from office.
Online petitions and surveys
A number of organizations provide online petitions and open access polls
regarding Bush/Cheney impeachment. An MSNBC online poll is ongoing and has
garnered in excess of 715,000 votes, 89% in favor of impeachment (as of June
However, MSNBC provides the disclaimer that,
"MSNBC's online surveys ... are not
necessarily representative of the general population."
Democrats.com has an active online petition,
which has received more than 153,000 of its targeted 1,000,000 signatures.
MoveOn has not officially taken up the cause for Bush/Cheney impeachment;
however, they have quietly initiated an online survey on the issue.
Ironically, MoveOn's reluctance to act more forcefully has led to an online
petition urging them act, endorsed by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, with
more than 2,500 additional signatures.
Media response to polls
Several columnists have endorsed impeachment.
Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group
predicted on November 6, 2005 that,
"if the country, according to the polls,
believes by a margin of 55 percent that President Bush misled us into
war, the next logical step is impeachment and I think you’re going to
hear that word come up and if the Democrats ever capture either house of
Congress there are going to be serious proceedings against this
However, Clift's prediction proved to be in
error. After the Democrats took both the House and Senate in the 2006
elections, there was no serious movement undertaken in Congress to initiate
When the Washington Post's chief pollster, Richard Morin, was asked by
readers why the Post has not polled on impeachment he responded,
"This question makes me angry" and
explained: "we do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious
option or a topic of considered discussion--witness the fact that no
member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious
Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's
impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."
Rallies and marches
An anti-Iraq war protest march in Washington, DC on 24 September 2005
attracted over 100,000 people. The march among other things included calls
for impeachment and for investigations leading to impeachment.
On November 2, 2005, The World Can't Wait mobilized marches across
the country that called for the ousting of Bush.
Groups formed to support impeachment
Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The website
ImpeachBush.org claims to have collected 1,004,746 signatures (as
of May 29, 2008) on a petition to impeach Bush.
Constitution Summer , a
nonpartisan coalition of students and young people at law schools and
universities nationwide, helped the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco put
impeachment on their municipal ballots, and are working to help other cities
pass city council resolutions. The organization does not appear to be
active, not having issued a press release since June, 2006.
A citizens arrest was attempted in 2006. 
Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution".
(June 10, 2008). "Impeach
Bush, Wexler says". South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com.
The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street
Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture,
Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War
Investigative Status Report of the House
Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for
Removing President George W. Bush from
Office written by
Dave Lindorff and
Barbara Olshansky details the legal and
Constitutional reasons for an impeachment.
Constitutional Grounds for
originally Web-posted by House Judiciary
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
The Impeachable Mr. Bush An
Aggregation of High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Ralph Nader, CounterPunch, January
The I-Word is Gaining Ground
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation,
December 27, 2005
Bush's Last, Best Hope: the
Democrats A Popular Groundswell for
DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, March 7, 2006
Five Vermont Towns Vote to
Associated Press, March 7, 2006
Plenty of opportunities to
impeach Bush by
Diane E. Dees,
Mother Jones, April 5, 2006
Raising the Issue of
The Nation, December 20, 2005
Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha
AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE
PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice,
January 19, 2006
Legal Rationale for Spy Program Questioned
By PETE YOST
inquiry into wiretapping
The Impeachment of George W. Bush by
Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11,
Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew
Rothschild, The Progressive, March 8, 2006
probably impeachable offense
An Impeachable Offense? Bush
Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on
Americans Without Court Approval
George W. Bush as the New
Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally,
and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a
President May Violate Congress' Laws to
Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
Is Clinton's history in
Bush's future? by
Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times, December 30,
Time for a Special Prosecutor
Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law
By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March
Why Should Anyone Worry About
Whose Communications Bush and Cheney Are
Intercepting, If It Helps To Find
JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006
American Civil Liberties Union : Federal Court
Strikes Down NSA Warrantless Surveillance
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Slams
House Panels’ Approval of Wilson NSA Spying
Bill, Says Measure Undermines Constitution,
Condones Abuse of Power
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Slams
House Panels’ Approval of Wilson NSA Spying
Bill, Says Measure Undermines Constitution,
Condones Abuse of Power
John Doe I v. President Bush
Suit challenges Bush war authority CNN
Judge Dismisses HLS Alum’s Suit Against Bush
By Kate A. Tiskus, The
Harvard Crimson, February 25, 2003
Opionion of First Circuit Court of Appeal in DOE
Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President
George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by
Francis A. Boyle, professor of law,
University of Illinois School of Law,
January 17, 2003
Bush administration has used 27 rationales for
war in Iraq, study says by Andrea Lynn, the
News Bureau of the University of Illinois at
Link with Al
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted -
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
By R. Jeffrey Smith, W@ashington Post, April 6,
Blowing Cheney's Cover
Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
The Intelligence Business editorial, The
New York Times, May 7, 2006
Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
The Impeachment of George W.
Bush, by Elizabeth
Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
A Firm Basis for Impeachment
Robert Scheer, AlterNet, July 18, 2003
The Case for Impeachment
John Dean, FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003
In Their Own Words: Iraq's
Center for American Progress, January 29,
Millions Protest Possible War
with Iraq February
Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R.
Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
UN Committee against
The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S.
Policy and Methods the memos written as part
of the war on terrorism
Memos Reveal War Crimes
Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19, 2004
Torture and Accountability
by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28,
US Lawyers Warn Bush on War
Crimes By Grant
McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global
Policy Forum, January 28, 2003
U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain
Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White
and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3,
UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read
the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February
for violating the Geneva Conventions
Is There a Case for
Harper's Magazine, Edited selections from a
forum moderated by Sam Seder and featuring
Representative John Conyers Jr., John Dean,
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman,
Lewis Lapham, and Michael Ratner, held March
2, 2006 at Town Hall in New York City.
The Case for Impeachment -
Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush
by Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's Magazine,
February 27, 2006.
Rally to Support Rep. John
Conyers and AfterDowningStreet.org
by Mike Ferner,
Veterans For Peace, June 16, 2005
Fmr. NY Congresswoman
Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His
Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu
Democracy Now, June 30, 2005
The Gonzales Indictment
By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 19, 2005
The Quaint Mr. Gonzales By Marjorie Cohn, La
Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper,
November 19, 2004
The Impeachment of George W.
Bush by Elizabeth
Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and
Human Rights First
Who is accountable for Army's
descent into torture?
By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein,
Salt Lake Tribune, March 4, 2006
Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail
A Supreme Rebuke Bush Loses Guantanamo Case
Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson
School of Law, president-elect of the National
Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the
executive committee of the American Association
of Jurists- CounterPunch, June 30, 2006
The Real Meaning of the Hamdan Ruling Supreme
Court: Bush Administration Has Committed War
Dave Lindorff, CounterPunch, July 3,
Red Cross Report of
C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives
Neil Lewis and
Jim Rutenberg, ""Libby
Pays Fine; Judge Poses Probation Query",
The New York Times, 6 July 2007,
accessed 6 July 2007.
Neil A. Lewis
and David Stout,
"Judge Won't Delay Libby Prison Term",
The New York Times, 14 June 2007,
accessed 16 June 2007.
"Judge Orders Libby Jailed during Appeal",
CNN News, 14 June 2007, accessed 14 June
"Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Term in CIA Leak
Case (Update 2)",
Bloomberg.com, 2 July 2007, accessed 2
George W. Bush,
"Grant of Executive Clemency: A Proclamation by
the President of the United States of America",
The White House, 2 July 2007, accessed 2
Censuring the President by Robert Wexler,
Huffington Post, July 6, 2007
The Opportunistic Commuter-in-Chief: The use and
misuse of presidential clemency power by
Marjorie Cohn, July 5, 2007
Bush's Real Fourth of July Message to Nation:
Unprintable By Elizabeth de la Vega,
truthout, July 6, 2007
Jackson: Bush Actions 'Crime Against
Constitution' - Congressman Calls For
Impeachment Proceedings After President Commutes
Libby Sentence CBS, July 2, 2007
Obstruction of Justice, Continued By
Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, July 3, 2007
White House Declines to
Counter Leak Claim
By PETE YOST,
Forbes, April 7, 2006
Libby Says Bush Authorized
National Journal, April 6, 2006
Bush: Hands Possibly as Dirty
as Scooter Libby's Flashback: Bush
Impeachment Not Out of the Question
April 6, 2006
Bush at Center of
By Jason Leopold, Truthout, April 6, 2006
The deception Bush can't spin
Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed
national secrets for political gain — and
makes Bush's statements about finding the
By Joe Conason, Salon, April 7, 2006
Bush authorized leak of Iraq
intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney
aide says RAW
STORY, April 6, 2006
Did Bush Lie to Fitzgerald?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News, April 7,
Memo to Sunday Talkers:
Please Get the Answers the American People
Representative John Conyers, Jr., April 7,
Another White House is buying
silence By Derrick
Z. Jackson, The
Boston Globe, April 8, 2006
President Bush, 2003: 'Leaks
of Classified Information Are a Bad Thing'
By E&P Staff, Editor & Publisher April 6,
Uncommon way of
Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega,
TomDispatch.com, April 9, 2006
Stolberg (March 17, 2007). "With
Shifting Explanations, White House Adds to Storm",
New York Times.
Press (March 17, 2007). "Republican
Support for Gonzales Erodes", New York
(March 17, 2007). "Accounts
of Prosecutors' Dismissals Keep Shifting",
Washington Post, p. A01.
Attorneys: A look at what's behind the U.S.
attorney flap", McClatchy Newspapers.
Strategy On Attorneys Takes Shape",
Questions for Karl Rove – and President Bush
By Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper, The
San Diego Union-Tribune, March 29, 2007
Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster By Mike
Gallagher, Albuquerque Journal, April 15, 2007
The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud - The Bush
administration purged U.S. attorneys for failing
to prosecute crimes that didn’t occur By
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times, April 18,
The Fantasy Behind the Scandal The New York
Times, April 2007
Campaign against alleged voter fraud fuels
political tempest By
McClatchy Newspapers, April 19, 2007
The Talented Mr. Griffin by
In These Times, April 16, 2007
and John Diedrich (April 5, 2007). "Ex-state
official freed: Judge calls evidence she steered
travel contract 'beyond thin'",
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Retrieved on 2007-04-07.
Frommer (April 10, 2007). "Baldwin:
Was freed state worker a victim of politics?".
(April 10, 2007). "U.S.
Senators Review Georgia Thompson Case",
(April 16, 2007). "A
Woman Wrongly Convicted and a U.S. Attorney Who
Kept His Job",
The New York Times.
Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his
job By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY, June 2 ,
Deconstructing the Dispute over the
Politicization of U.S. Attorney Firings: The
News Stories, the Testimony, and What Should
Happen Next By CARL TOBIAS, FindLaw, March
Firings raise concern over Justice Dept. and
politics - Gonzales admits mistakes were made,
but he stands by dismissal of federal
prosecutors by Bob Egelko,
San Francisco Chronicle, March 14, 2007
Bush, Gonzales Reportedly Discussed Fired
Prosecutor By Margaret Talev, McClatchy
Newspapers, April 17, 2007
The New Watergate? U.S.
Attorneys and Voting Rights
Marjorie Cohn, professor at
Thomas Jefferson School of Law and
president of the
National Lawyers Guild, CounterPunch
Newsletter, April 12, 2007
James Madison - “Impeach Bush
by Thom Hartmann,
CommonDreams.org, March 27, 2007
Ah, Alberto Gonzales
by Larry Beinhart,
CommonDreams.org, April 3, 2007
Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed
By John Solomon and Spencer S. Hsu, Washington
Post, April 29, 2007
Ramsey Clark on Hurricane
Clarke, September 6, 2005
POLITICS AND CULTURE/EAST AND
WEST: Impeach George W. Bush
by Robert R. Thompson, PopMatters, October
Katrina, Bush and Cheney
Grounds for Impeachment
By FRANCIS BOYLE, September 16, 2005
Greens Call for Impeachment
of Bush and Accomplices for Crimes Against
Humanity Due to the Preventable Deaths of
Thousands in New Orleans
Green Party of Humboldt County, August
Hurricane Katrina Huffed and
Puffed and Laid President Bush’s
Sunday Independent, September 4, 2005
The Impeachment of George W.
Bush The Nation,
January 30, 2006
The Miserable Response to
Katrina - How Emergency Management Failed
New Orleans By
Der Spiegel, September 7, 2005
Brown puts blame on Louisiana
September 28, 2005
Former FEMA Director Brown
Blames 'Dysfunctional Louisiana' for Katrina
Response; Lawmakers Mock Him
by Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press
Reporting on Bush pre-Katrina
briefing, NY Times, Wash. Post, USA Today
entirely forgot Bush claim that no one
anticipated levee breaches
Media Matters for America, March 2, 2006
Brown blames Gov. Blanco By Stephen Dinan,
The Washington Times, September 28, 2005
Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending
American Values from a President Run Amok,
Working Assets Publishing, 2006, ISBN
Abuse of Power
The Impeachment of George W.
Bush by Elizabeth
Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
The Problem with Presidential
Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by
the Bush Administration
By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
The Unitary Executive: Is The
Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency
Consistent with a Democratic State?
By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 9,
How Much Authority Does the
President Possess When He Is Acting as
"Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President
Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court
Executive Power Precedent
By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
The President Does Not Know
Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com.
Posted January 19, 2006
Impeaching George W. Bush
Alternet, March 6, 2006
If Judges Won't Stand Up to
Bush, Who Will?
Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS
ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S.
The Santiago Times, 21 December 2005
It's time to impeach Bush, Cheney and the public
Launch drive to impeach Bush, activists urge
By PAUL KORING,
Globeandmail.com, June 17, 2005
U.S. House Judiciary Committee
H.RES.635 - Creating a select committee to
investigate the Administration's intent to go to
war before congressional authorization,
manipulation of pre-war intelligence,
encouraging and countenancing
torture, retaliating against critics, and to
make recommendations regarding grounds for
possible impeachment Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John,
Jr. (introduced December 18, 2005)
No Rush to Impeachment By John Conyers Jr.,
Washington Post, May 18, 2006
compares Bush to Nixon", Minnesota Public
Ellison pursue impeachment? Not for now, he says",
(April 23, 2007). ""Impeachment
Should Be on the Table": Rep. Keith Ellison
Press Release of Senator Boxer "Boxer Asks
Presidential Scholars About Former White House
Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an
'Impeachable Offense'", December 19, 2005
article "Congressman calls for Bush
impeachment." The Associated Press
Rep. Lewis press release "Rep. John Lewis
Says No Justification for NSA Spying on American
Citizens," December 19, 2005
article "Call is out to impeach Bush, Dems
are urged at unofficial hearing," Detroit Free
Press, January 21, 2006
Democrats Won't Try to Impeach President by
Charles Babington, Washington Post, 12
Pelosi Says Democrats Are Ready to Lead by
NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press, 8 November
Pelosi Opposes Impeachment.
The Nation, 07/31/2007
Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush", Associated
Press (via breitbart.com).
clip of Rep. Conyers on This Week with George
US presidential candidate insists he saw UFO -
Poll: Vermont Wants Bush, Cheney Impeached,
Nearly Two-Thirds Of State's Likely Voters Want
President, VP Removed Before Term Ends - CBS
Fosters.com - Dover NH, Rochester NH, Portsmouth
NH, Laconia NH, Sanford ME
Seacoastonline.com: Biden: Impeachment if Bush
"Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad.
These Guys Are Worse."
Washington Post, Sunday, January 6,
2008; Page B01
'Before this is over, you might see calls for
his impeachment.' - Esquire
(February 8, 2007). ""GOP
Lawmaker Warns of Impeachment in Border Agent
Case": Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)".
Dems Call For Bush's Exit".
Retrieved January 27, 2007
"Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush", by
ABC News, 7 March 2007.
Vermont: 36 towns call for impeachment probe of
president, by Shay Totten & Christian Avard
Vermont Guardian, March 6, 2007.
Why Not Gaye?,
Brattleboro Reformer March 28.
24 – As Introduced 2008 Session". New
Hampshire House of Representatives. Retrieved on
87-Year Old New Hampshire State Representative
Says She Will Not Eat and Is Willing to Die for
Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org
Impeach Bush For Peace » New Hampshire to
About Ipsos in North America
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He
Lied about Iraq October 11, 2005
32% Favor Bush Impeachment
The Raw Story | Poll: Americans slightly favor
plan to censure
The Washington Monthly
CNN poll, 8 September 2006
"Are the Faithful Losing Faith?" By Marcus
Newsweek, October 21, 2006
Two-in-Five Americans Would Impeach Bush: Angus
Reid Global Monitor
Inside the Numbers - HUMAN EVENTS
Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll
Poll: 45% say impeach Bush
American Research Group:
Impeachment poll. November 13, 2007.
Two-in-Five Americans Would Impeach Cheney:
Angus Reid Global Monitor
"Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick
"Dealing with the Administration"
"It's Time for MoveOn to Start Talking about
Clift: "Next Logical Step is Impeachment" of
President Bush -11/7/2005- Media Research Center
Poll: Bush Approval Numbers Up. The
Washington Post. 2005-12-20.
Anti-War Protesters March On D.C., Police
Estimate Event Drew 100,000 Demonstrators - CBS
World Can't Wait | Drive Out the Bush Regime -
Anti-Bush Protests In NYC, Organization Calls
For Putting An End To The Bush Administration -
Article Not Found!
Infoshop News - 1,000 Attempt Citizen's Arrest
of Bush at UN; Blocked by Police, 10 to 12