From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and help summarize or split the content into subarticles of an article series.

The movement to impeach George W. Bush is a political movement advocating the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush. Those who have voiced support for impeachment include some Democratic and Republican members of the United States Congress, various other politicians and government officials, demonstrators, scholars, authors, members of the media, and a segment of the American people and international community. The reasons they offer for Bush's impeachment include concerns about the legitimacy, legality, and constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the controversial electronic surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency.

2007 polls have shown public support ranging between 39 and 45 percent in favor of impeaching Bush, and between 46 and 55 percent 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.

Contents 1 Impeachment 2 Rationales for impeachment 2.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy 2.2 2003 invasion of Iraq 2.2.1 Constitutionality of invasion 2.2.2 Justification for invasion 2.2.3 U.N. Charter 2.3 Geneva Conventions controversy 2.3.1 Unlawful combatant status 2.3.2 Extraordinary rendition 2.3.3 Treatment of detainees 2.4 Leaking of classified information 2.4.1 Possible involvement in the CIA leak 2.4.2 Commuting Libby's sentence 2.4.3 Alleged Declassification for political purposes 2.5 Alleged politicization of the United States attorney offices 2.6 Hurricane Katrina 2.7 Controversial Facts of the 2004 Presidential Election 2.8 Expanded executive powers 3 Political views and actions 3.1 Democrats in Congress 3.2 Republicans in Congress 3.3 State Legislatures 3.4 State Party Conventions 3.5 Local communities 4 Reported White House reaction 5 Public opinion 5.1 2005 polls 5.2 2006 polls 5.3 2007 polls 5.4 Media response to polls 5.5 Rallies and marches 5.6 Groups formed to support impeachment 6 Advocates of impeachment 6.1 Organizations 6.2 Politicians and government officials 6.3 Legal and academic professionals 6.4 Media editorials and opinion pieces 7 Criticism of the impeachment movement 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

Main article: Impeachment in the United States

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 President. 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 tried 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: President John Tyler, President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President 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 trial. 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.^[1][2]

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^[3] and others. However, since impeachment is inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense. 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."

Further information: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Rule of law, and Separation of powers

In the context of the "war on terror", 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,^[4] 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.^[5] 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.^[6] 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.^[7]

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.^[8] 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.^[9][10]

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 thereof." The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.^[11]

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.^[12][13][14]

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.^[15] 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 president "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.^[16]

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.^[17] Some civil liberties groups opposed the bill commenting that the new bill gives the president tacit approval to ignore the Constitution.^[18]

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.^[19]

Further information: 2003 invasion of Iraq

Further information: United States Constitution

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,^[20] 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.^[21] 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."^[22]

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."^[23]

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[24]

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Bush-Aznar memo

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq^[25] — 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.^[26][27] 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."^[28]

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,^[29] which had purportedly been reported to 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 whitewash.^[30]

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.^[31][32] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.^[33] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.^[34] 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 factories."^[35]

Further information: UN Charter, War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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.^{[1][24][13][36]} 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.^[24][37]

Further information: Unlawful combatant, Combatant Status Review Tribunal, and Seton Hall study

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.^[38] 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 Terror. Per the War Crimes Act of 1996, any US national who "commits a war crime [e.g., violates CA3] shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... , and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

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.

Further information: Extraordinary rendition and United Nations Convention Against Torture

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".^[39] Then-U.S. Attorney GeneralAlberto 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.^[40] 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 torture.

Commentators, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.^[1][41] Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,^[1] whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.^[24]

A report, on May 19, 2006, by the UN Committee against Torture concluded that the US should not send suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture, since that would violate international law.^[42]

Further information: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Geneva Conventions, and Command responsibility

As part of the war on terror several memos^[43] 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.^[44] 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.^[45]

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.^[46]

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised 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 understand."^[47]

The administration adopted the McCain Detainee Amendment 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.^[48]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.^[49] 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.^{[1][24][12][13][50]} An article in the Progressive supports the view that these alleged violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense too.^[13]

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^[24] under the command responsibility.^[1][51] 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 terror 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.^[52] 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.^[53]

On May 19, 2006, the UN Committee 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 discontinued.^[42]

Further information: Yellowcake forgery, CIA leak scandal, and CIA leak grand jury investigation

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush cited British government sources in saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, and specifically as a covert agent, appeared in media reports for the first time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked as personal retaliation against him for his pointing out misrepresentations regarding the uranium claim.

An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald led to an indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury charges and for obstructing the investigation into the release of Plame's covert status. Hence, nobody has been indicted for divulging the name of a covert agent. The actual first source of Plame's name to the media was Richard Armitage.^[54]

At one point, Libby's indictment states:

"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."^[55]

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors.^[56] No court papers have alleged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13, 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name.^[57] Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name.

Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. A court filing by Fitzgerald during his sentencing hearing revealed that Plame was indeed a covert agent.^[58]

Main articles: United States v. Libby, Obstruction of justice, Plame affair, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a fine of $250,000. 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.^[59][60] Following that decision, Bush commuted Libby's sentence, eliminating the prison term while not changing the other parts and their conditions and stating that he believes the sentence too harsh given that "The reputation [Libby] gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged" and that "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."^[61][62] Libby paid the required fine of "$250,400, which included a 'special assessment' of costs" that same day.^[63] Just a few days later, however, Judge Walton questioned "whether ... [Libby] will face two years of probation, as [President Bush] said he would," because the supervised release time is conditioned on Libby's serving the prison sentence, and he "directed the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and ... [Libby's] lawyers to file arguments on the point....""^[63]If Judge Walton does not impose any supervised release, it could undercut ... [Bush's] argument that ... Libby still faced stiff justice."^[63]

Fitzgerald "took issue with Bush's description of the sentence as 'excessive,' saying it was 'imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. ... It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals,' Fitzgerald said. 'That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.'"^[64] Commentator and sentencing expert Harlan J. Protass noted that in Rita v. United States,^[65] the case of a defendant convicted of perjury in front of a grand jury which had been decided two weeks earlier by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. government had successfully argued that sentences that fall within Federal Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be "reasonable", regardless of individual circumstances.^[66]

Conyers announced that there would be a formal Congressional investigation of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence and other presidential reprieves.^[67][68] And Rep. Robert Wexler stated:

I will file a Congressional resolution censuring President George W. Bush for his egregious and politically motivated commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence.^[69]

In light of the unprecedented decision and suspicion of obstructing justice, to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth de la Vega, Dan Froomkin, and William Rivers Pitt have suggested this is an impeachable offense.^{[70][71][72][73][74][75]} According to Froomkin the President is within his prerogative, but continued to cite a Judiciary Committee report, drafted in response to Watergate, to concur with Marjorie Cohn that when used in matters in which he himself may be involved impeachment is warranted:

"In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . ."

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."^[70][72]

Further information: Invasion of Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo, Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, and CIA leak grand jury investigation

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.^[31][76] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentially authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classify material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.^[31][77] Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable.^[31][78] 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 declassified.”^[79]

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.^[29][79][80] Bush's misrepresentations on this point and his allegedly declassifying of information for a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.^[80][81]

Main articles: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Bush White House e-mail controversy, and Executive privilege

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.^{[82][83][84][85]} Congressmen investigating these dismissals stated that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials contradicts internal Department memos and e-mails.^[86]

Because of that, and the uncommon nature of these firings,^[87] 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."^[88] They allege that the attorneys were fired as retribution for prosecuting Republicans,^[88] or for failing to prosecute enough Democrats.^[89] for non-existent voter-fraud.^[90] 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."^[91]

The article continues to suggest that emphasising 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."^[92] 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.^[93]

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."^[94] Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Madison^[95] and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating this case.^[96][97]

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.^[88][98]

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 scandal.^{[99][88][100][101]}

For the involvement in these alleged wrongdoings^[102] and the subsequent cover-up Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Cynthia L. Cooper, and Thom Hartmann have suggested that impeachment proceedings are warranted.^[88][103]

Further information: Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina , and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina^[104] 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.^[24][105]

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.^[106] 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 Blanco.^[107]

• 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. ^{[108] [109]}

• There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. ^{[110] [108]}

• The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. ^{[111] [108]}

• The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." ^[112]

• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. ^{[113] [114]}

• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. ^[115] The following two links had further credible support for this but they sites have since been removed and no reason has been found yet.

   ** History of NIH
   ** National Institutes of Health homepage 

• Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. ^{[116] [117]}

• ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. ^{[118] [108]}

• Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. ^{[119] [120]}

• Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail. ^{[119] [121]}

• Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. ^{[122] [123]}

• Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States. ^{[124] [125]}

• Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years. ^{[125] [126] [127]}

• None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio. ^{[128] [129]}

• California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it, literally. See the movie here: [11] ^{[130] [131]}

• 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail. ^[112]

• All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates. ^{[132] [133] [134]}

• The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother. ^[135]

• Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation. ^{[133] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]}

• 1 in 5 Americans believe the elections were fraudulent. That's over 41 Million Americans.

Further information: Unitary executive theory and signing statement

Bush has asserted broad executive powers, attributing them to his position as Commander-in-Chief and to the war on terror. 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.^[141]

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.^[1][142] In the Draft Impeachment Resolution, Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.^[24] John Nichols of The Nation has argued that "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."^[143]

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.^[144][145] In July 2007, Pelosi stated that she "would probably advocate" impeaching Bush if she were not in the House nor Speaker of the House.^[146]

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.^[147]

On December 20, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, at Conyers' request, filed its report. ^[148] 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.^[149]

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."^[150]

On December 19, 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) issued a press release,^[151] 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 Bush's impeachment.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has said that Bush should be impeached for authorizing the NSA's actions.^[152][153]

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.^[154]

Keith Ellison was the leading figure behind the resolution to impeach Bush brought to the Minnesota State House of Representatives in May 2006 (see below). Ellison said “I absolutely know and can show that (the president) deserves it; he deserves to be impeached.”^[155]

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.^[156][157] In support of his candidacy, he “received a $1,000 contribution from ImpeachPAC”.^[157]

One of Ellison’s Republican counterparts from Minnesota, Rep. John Kline, said “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?”^[157] 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 American people.^[158]

On December 8, 2006 (the last day of the 109th Congress), then-Rep. 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 Condoleeza Rice. The bill expired along with the 109th Congress.^[159]

Conyers brought up impeachment on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos^[160] July 8th, 2007, stating:

"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, Sen. 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."[12][13]

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.^[161][162] 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.^[163]

In November 2007, Presidential candidate Joe Biden stated that he will move to impeach if President Bush bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.^[164]

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has raised the possibility of impeachment ^[165]. 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 (R-CA) said, ""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."^[166]

In July 2006, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated on Alex Jones' radio show "I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office." ^[167]

As of June 2007, 11 state legislatures have considered impeachment resolutions; none has passed such a resolution. Impeachment resolutions in Wisconsin and Maine were still pending votes; in the other nine states, resolutions have either been defeated or 'died' with the closure of the legislative session without ever coming to a vote. These states were: Illinois (the first state to consider such a measure, introduced April 20, 2006), California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont and Washington^[168]

On April 20, 2007, the Vermont State Senate passed a resolution calling for impeachment on a 16-9 vote, without debate.^[169][170] A similar resolution made its way through the Vermont House less than a week later, but was defeated 87-60.^[171][172]

On April 20, 2006, the Illinois State Legislature began to consider Resolution 125 (HJR0125), which brought five specific charges against Bush.^[173] On April 25, 2006 over a dozen members of the Illinois house co-sponsored the bill, and referred it to the Rules Committee.

In April 2006, an impeachment proposal was introduced in the California state legislature.^[174] On November 7, 2006, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley approved ballot measures calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment.^{[175][176][177]} Both measures call upon the California State Legislature and both houses of Congress to pursue impeachment proceedings.^[178]

On May 4, 2006, then-State Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minneapolis) and four other DFL state legislators proposed a "resolution relating to impeachment of President George W. Bush".^[179][180]

On January 23, 2007 a resolution was introduced to the New Mexico Legislature.^{[181][181][182][183]}

The Democrats hold both chambers of New Mexico’s Legislature, but the resolution has been set to come before three different committee hearings. The New Mexican reported “That many committee assignments generally is thought of as the kiss of death for legislation. Not only are there three chances to kill a measure before it gets to a floor vote, it also increases the chance that time will run out in the 60-day session before a measure can make it through both chambers.”^[182] Republican members told reporters that they were not taking the resolution seriously and cited the number of committee hearings as one of the reasons for their opinion.^[182]

Washington state senator Eric Oemig introduced Senate Joint Memorial 8016 in February 2007 calling on Congress to investigate and consider the impeachment of President Bush.^[184][185]

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.”^[186]

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."^{[187][188][189]}

As of July 2007, a total of 80 cities and townships in the United States had passed declarations calling for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. ^[190]

By March 6, 2007, 39 towns in Vermont (up from just five towns in 2006) had passed resolutions calling on Congress to file articles of impeachment against Bush for claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and for it's warrantless wiretapping program. On May 17, 2007, the Detroit City Council passed a unanimous, non-binding resolution calling for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. The resolution was sponsored by Monica Conyers, wife of Rep. John Conyers.

As of June 2007, a number of local community governments had passed similar impeachment resolutions. They are as follows^[191]

• California: 8 cities (including Arcata, Berkeley, Eureka, San Francisco, Santa Rosa and West Hollywood)
• Illinois: 1 city (Urbana)
• Massachusetts: 17 towns
• Michigan: 2 cities (Detroit; Ferndale)
• New Hampshire: 1 township (Hanover)
• New York: four townships; one county (Tompkins)
• North Carolina: two towns (Carrboro; Chapel Hill}
• Ohio: 1 city (Oberlin)
• Vermont: 39 townships
• Washington: 11 state legislative districts; 1 city (Olympia)

The January 23-29 2006 issue of Insight on the News, self-described as "a sister publication" of the Washington Times, included an article, "Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst." This article said administration sources regard Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy as "a prelude to the impeachment process." An anonymous source criticized Congress, saying, "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."^[192]

In October 2005, an anti-Iraq war organization, After Downing Street, commissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research,^[193] 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.^[194] 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 November 2, 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled the public" in making its case for war.^[195]