I just received this from Russ Gilfix of Democracy for America. I
should have time to respond on Saturday.
Richard Duffee
On Jan 3, 2008 11:40 AM, Russ Gilfix <russ.gilfix@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard, perhaps you will distribute my own brief response to your open
> letter to the rest of your Impeachment email group:
>
>
> Richard et al,
>
> In opening let me first clarify that I am an independent, not a member of
> the Democratic Party. Typically I register with a party prior to a primary
> and then change my registration back to independent after the general
> election.
>
> MY suggestion that the Green Party (and as local Chairperson for DFA my
> suggestion to members of DFA who may be members of the Green Party or work
> with members of the Green Party) consider endorsing Jim Himes has NOTHING to
> do with the Democratic Party and it has NOTHING to do with politics as
> usual. Richard, you confuse a person, Jim Himes, with the Democratic Party.
> What it does have to do with is that, in my own personal opinion and with
> all due respect, Jim Himes is a far better representative of progressive
> values than yourself, a far better candidate to bring ethics and
> practicality to bear on all the important issues of the times. I base my
> backing of Mr. Himes via the same approach I always take:
> my perception of their ethics
> my perception of how well they can translate an ethical, values based
> approach (which happily includes the Constitution and should not be confused
> with the purely rhetorical use of the word "values" by many conservatives)
> into policy
> my perception of their ability to use their experience, skills and
> intelligence to identify problems and solutions
> my perception of their ability to be effective in achieving the goals we are
> electing them to achieve
> REGARDING IMPEACHMENT
> While I agree that the incumbent President and VP should be impeached what
> we need is an approach that will actually help bring ethics and the rule of
> law to government. Mr. Himes recognizes that there are many critical issues
> of political ethics that need addressing. The abuses by lobbyists, the
> abuses against voting rights, the counting of votes, the guilt of both major
> parties in perpetrating dirty tricks during campaigns and elections are just
> for starters. While I do not claim you would disagree, you have from the
> beginning made impeachment an issue that eclipses all others to a point
> where no other issue warrants your consideration. Worse, you have more than
> once stated during a discussion in my presence that no other issue warrants
> "our" consideration till this one is resolved.
>
> As a citizen or an activist I thank you for your efforts in attempting to
> make this a meaningful issue. However, as a legislator, especially one that
> would take office after the current administration has left Washington, the
> tone of your approach and your use of blinders to all other issues actually
> makes convincing the public, the politicians and the media considerably more
> difficult. Even as you bring intelligent understanding of the various
> aspects of impeachment, by being so dogmatic, by displaying public rage on
> such a regular basis as to leave one unsure as to whether you are dirven by
> rage alone, you give reason for others to turn their minds off to the issue
> and so in a twist of irony play a sort of "dirty tricks" role effectively
> making it easier for supporters of the President and VP.
>
> So, while you give an unsympathetic face (in your public presentation) to
> the issue of impeachment and so damage that cause, you do not acknowledge or
> lay out goals and a road map on other truly critical issues of ethics and
> law even as democracy in America is under siege. Mr. Himes not only speaks
> to these issues, as well as impeachment, but he gives some positive and
> intelligent perspectives to approaches and solutions.
>
> REGARDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
> The guilt of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party leadership in
> eroding American democracy is a major reason I remain an independent voter.
> While we are in some general agreement regarding the Democratic Party there
> are many, such as Jim Himes and such as DFA as an organization, who have not
> gone along and have stood up against it. I do not see much difference on the
> issues except that again Mr. Himes approach and character make him a much
> more effective person on these hugely important issues.
>
> REGARDING QUALITY OF CANDIDATE
> While both you and Mr. Himes show qualities of intellect, Mr. Himes shows it
> through more than a rote understanding of law. He demonstrates depth of
> understanding, of dealing with issues where conflicting rights or
> conflicting goals test the ability to assess and develop solutions. He does
> it without compromising his ethics and without alientating others. Your
> intellect has not been publicly illustrative of an ability to find solutions
> or avenues to creating consensus or agreement. Being "right" even with all
> the legal understanding you articualte does not overcome the alienating
> qualities of your approach.
>
> REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CANDIDATE
> While it is not unusual for people to vote for the least of two evils or to
> vote for a candidate as a way of making a statement, this race actually has
> a candidate that is worth voting for. Not because he belongs to any
> particular party but because he appears to have all the key ingredients to
> make a truly strong, truly good legislator. Voting for Mr. Himes does
> everything we hope to when we, as progressives, cast our votes. We make a
> statement and we elect a person we will want to reelect. It is rare to find
> someone this strong, to find someone who, finally, truly measures up.
>
> REGARDING THE GREEN PARTY ITSELF
> The very name the Green Party chose when it first organized indicates that
> it has some serious concerns on issues affecting the entire planet. Jim
> Himes has been of like mind on most if not all of these issues as can be
> seen in the actions of his daily life as wel as in his political positions.
> Mr. Himes is far better at furthering those causes that helped to bring
> together people who in good conscience could not remain silent in the face
> of the enormity of those problems.
>
> Richard, my response concludes with a request that you yourself become
> familiar with Jim Himes as a candidate. If you do so beofre the Green Party
> makes its decision you may find that you will end up agreeing with me that
> Jim Himes is an unusually good candidate. It is my hope that you may even
> decide to back his candidacy both within the Green Party and in the general
> election.
>
> Please note that there is nothing in my reason or reasonings that compels
> anyone to vote "Democrat".
>
> Regards,
>
> Russ Gilfix
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2008 11:48 PM, Richard Duffee <richard.duffee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, Impeachment Folk & Greens,
> > This message is essentially an open letter to Jim Himes. It seems he
> > may seek the Green Party's endorsement for Congress. Because the
> > letter (1) concludes with a request that he examine the case for
> > impeachment in detail, it also has (2) the National Lawyers Guild's
> > resolution for impeachment, which some of you may know. (3) Because
> > Mr. Himes and/or Democrats who support him may want the Green Party to
> > vote for neither Gerald Falbel nor me, but instead to endorse him, it
> > concludes with the official meeting notice for the January 13 Green
> > nominating convention.
> > Richard Duffee
> >
> > 1) Richard Duffee's open letter to Jim Himes:
> >
> > January 2, 2008
> > Dear Jim Himes,
> > You are making the moralistic case that I should not want to obstruct
> > the reconstruction of US norms that supposedly will occur if only more
> > Democrats—including you—are elected. In arguing this, you are not
> > providing any specific commitments; you're simply stating that your
> > will is good and that the will of other Democrats is better than the
> > will of Republicans. But I and other Greens did not leave the
> > Democratic Party because the Democrats did not make encouraging
> > abstract promises. I left because the Democrats a) never became the
> > party of peace McGovern and McCarthy tried to make it, b) then moved
> > to the right from 1981 on, and c) did not even honor the commitments
> > they made in the 1960's and 70's, let alone the 1930's. I believe
> > other former Democratic activists joined the Greens for similar
> > reasons.
> >
> > Specifically, you are relying on the belief that the solution to our
> > constitutional crisis is to elect more Democrats. That proposition
> > does not seem obvious to me, so you will have to argue the case for
> > it. I think you will see from the questions below that the case for
> > the Democrats is not so easy to make. More generally, you are relying
> > on the more plausible belief that the Democrats are more benign than
> > the Republicans. So I'll throw in some questions pointing to the more
> > general argument that the Democrats are not benign enough.
> >
> > If you want to persuade me and people who perceive what I perceive,
> > you can 1) persuade us that the Democrats are better than we think, 2)
> > that the Republicans are even worse than we think, 3) that the
> > Democrats are so good that we are safe in their hands even though they
> > won't defend the Constitution, 4) that you are better than most of the
> > Democrats, will help move the Party away from its compromises with the
> > Bush Administration, and WILL defend the Constitution.
> >
> > 1) The constitutional crisis has been triggered largely by Bush's
> > wars. Bush has only been able to pursue war in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan—and to prepare for war against Iran—because the Democrats
> > have funded his wars. They have continued the funding after they knew
> > the invasion of Iraq was based on deceit. The Democrats voted for the
> > invasion when they knew it violated the UN Charter and international
> > law. Show me that you opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq in March,
> > 2003—as I did.
> >
> > 2) The three front-running Democratic candidates for President,
> > Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, each said in June that they could not
> > guarantee that the US would withdraw all troops from Iraq by 2013. So
> > the Democratic Party leaders want to maintain the US presence in
> > Iraq—probably as Bush does, as a permanent presence like our presence
> > in South Korea. The Democrats have funded the building of the world's
> > largest embassy and massive military bases for that apparent purpose.
> > Show me that you will withhold funds for aggressive wars.
> >
> > 3) Clinton bombed Iraq and maintained the embargo throughout his
> > terms. The Red Cross studies found that his actions accounted for more
> > than half a million deaths. Show me that you would not vote for such
> > actions.
> >
> > 4) Most Democrats voted for the "Patriot Act." Show me that you
> > opposed it in some way if you did.
> >
> > 5) Only six Democrats voted against the "Violent Radicalization and
> > Homegrown Terrorism Act". Show me that you would have been in the
> > company of the 6 opponents.
> >
> > 6) 34 House Democrats voted for the fascist Military Commissions Act.
> > Show me you would not have been among them.
> >
> > 7) The front-running Democrats still will not vote for universal
> > health care, even when the US has the lowest level of longevity of all
> > developed countries despite having the second highest GDP per capita.
> > Show me that you are for universal health care.
> >
> > 8) Bush's tax cuts for the rich could not have been accomplished
> > without the collusion of Democrats. Show me what sort of tax bills you
> > support.
> >
> > 9) The fraudulent "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which mandates
> > achievement levels without providing funds, could not have been
> > accomplished without the collusion of Democrats. Show me what sort of
> > education bills you support.
> >
> > 10) Democrats colluded in the 9/11 Commission Report. They have not
> > insisted on a thorough investigation that includes, for instance, the
> > collapse of Building 7, the relationship between the attack on the
> > Pentagon and the reconstruction of the Pentagon, and Cheney's
> > activities on 9/11. Will you demand a full investigation of 9/11?
> >
> > 11) Democrats are allowing the phone companies that violated FISA
> > legislation to evade prosecution. Tell me how you believe our laws
> > should be enforced.
> >
> > 12) Democrats have not responded to Bush's commutation of Libby's
> > conviction. Where is the investigation into the outing of Valerie
> > Plame? Isn't it necessary—when there may be evidence of treason there?
> >
> > 13) Democrats gave Bush his extraordinary war powers, the apparent
> > blank check that he keeps drawing on. Tell me how the Democrats will
> > reclaim the war powers the Congress is obligated by the Constitution
> > to preserve for itself?
> >
> > 14) Democrats have not investigated the gigantic sums of money missing
> > from the Pentagon accounts. Tell me why everyone in this country is
> > not entitled to bring taxpayer suits on this ground when Congress will
> > not defend our rights?
> >
> > 15) Democrats did not sign on to the International Criminal Court when
> > they had the chance under the Clinton Administration.
> >
> > 16) It was Clinton, not Bush, who degraded the Legal Services
> > Corporation into a mere telephone referral service, thus making it
> > effectively impossible for the poor to enforce their legal rights and
> > making Legal Services lawyers unable to deliver the "zealous
> > representation" necessary for ethical practice.
> >
> > 17) Explain to me how the Democrats will be more peaceful than the
> > Republicans when, under Clinton, we pursued illegal bombing of Kosovo
> > and Iraq, and aided the military junta in Haiti more than the
> > democratically elected President Aristide? The Democrats began and
> > pursued the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Prove to us that the
> > Democrats will not do such things in the future and that you will vote
> > against them consistently if they do.
> >
> > 18) The CIA has been just as active under Democratic Administrations
> > as under Republican ones. The Kennedys were great champions of
> > counterinsurgency and promoted the Bay of Pigs; US aid to the Taliban
> > began under Carter. Will you propose the abolition of the CIA, or at
> > least of its covert operations, which violate international law, the
> > law of the nations where they are carried out, and often US domestic
> > law as well?
> >
> > 19) Under the Democratic administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, the
> > FBI would not intervene when rioters and police attacked civil rights
> > workers in Alabama and Mississippi. J. Edgar Hoover operated the
> > Cointelpro Program against the Black Panther Party, the Socialist
> > Workers Party. How will the Democrats prevent the FBI from acting as
> > the KGB did--as political police--violating the Bill of Rights?
> >
> > 20) You know that Bush and Cheney have committed numerous ordinary
> > crimes as well as high crimes and misdemeanors—and possibly treason.
> > What will you do to ensure they are prosecuted for their crimes so
> > that future administrations do not believe themselves above the law?
> >
> > 21)
www.GovTrack.us has a statistical study of the political spectrum
> > based on co-sponsorship of bills. It finds Shays to be single the
> > Republican representative furthest to the left (3 Senate Republicans
> > are to his left); 64 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats appear to
> > be to his right. I'd argue that Shays votes to the left when it
> > doesn't matter and to the right when it does, so that he cloaks his
> > right-wing corporate Republicanism in Liberal trivia, so the study
> > misses the dimensions that could make it decisive. But it is
> > disturbing to note that Larson holds the same position on the spectrum
> > as Lieberman and that Courtney and Murphy are BETWEEN Lieberman and
> > Shays, slightly closer to Shays. ONLY DeLauro is to the left of
> > Lieberman (yet to the right of Kucinich). The implication is that
> > Connecticut Democratic representatives do NOT have records that should
> > recommend them to Greens. Therefore I believe you should demonstrate
> > to us that you will be better for us than Murphy, Courtney, and
> > Larson—let alone Lieberman—are. This will be a difficult task because
> > new entrants to the Congress come under very heavy pressure from party
> > bosses.
> >
> > 22) Finally, I am attaching a copy of the National Lawyer's Guild's
> > resolution on impeachment. I use the NLG resolutions because it is
> > drawn up by lawyers and it comes with links to ample documentation.
> > Please go through its charges and decide
> > a) whether each is or is not an impeachable offense,
> > b) whether the evidence you have seen so far implies that Bush or
> > Cheney MAY have committed that offense, and
> > c) if your answer to both questions is "yes", what you will do to
> > advance the impeachment process.
> > d) If you decide that the charge is (also) an ordinary crime, please
> > say what should be done to prosecute Bush and/or Cheney. [I will also
> > send you a list of the charges in the form of ordinary crimes.]
> > e) If you will not advocate either impeachment or prosecution, kindly
> > explain why subsequent executives should not believe they are above
> > the law.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Richard Duffee
> >
> > **
> > 2) National Lawyers' Guild resolution on impeachment:
> >
> > Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney:
> >
> > 1. deliberately misled the nation and doctored intelligence, as
> > described in the Downing Street minutes,
> > http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html about the threat
> > from Iraq in order to justify a war of aggression and an occupation of
> > Iraq, as further
> > described in House resolution H. Res. 333
> > http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf and as listed in
> > House Resolution H. Res. 635
> > http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr109-635
> >
> > 2. committed crimes against peace by initiating war against Iraq in
> > violation of the UN Charter http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/;
> >
> > 3. committed crimes against humanity in their conduct of the
> > occupation of Iraq in which they killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
> > civilians and created millions of refugees
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html and
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2
> > 006/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.main/index.html;
> >
> > 4. killed over 3700 American soldiers and severely wounded nearly
> > 30,000 more in the pursuit of an illegal, immoral, and unjust
> > occupation of Iraq. While Bush and Cheney have stated no truthful
> > noble cause for the war, one of the central purposes appears
> > to be to take control of Iraq's immense oil reserves to financially
> > benefit private corporate
> > interests. See Bush's benchmark listing fact sheet released the same
> > day Bush announced the "surge" that expressly called on the Iraq
> > parliament to "enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment . . . "
> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-
> > 3.html and http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672/;
> >
> > 5. committed further crimes against peace by threatening Iran in
> > violation of the UN Charter, as described in House resolution H. Res.
> > 333 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
> > bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333: and
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6649053.stm;
> >
> > 6. detained thousands of prisoners without charges and without
> > providing the ability to confront their accusers at a fair trial
> > http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America
> ;
> >
> > 7. condoned the torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva
> > Conventions, the US anti-torture statute of 1994, the US War Crimes
> > Act of 1996, and the oath of office
> > http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm and
> > http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America
> > and
> >
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
> .
> > Bush's refusal to faithfully execute the laws prohibiting torture and
> > his declaration on February 7, 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did
> > not apply to prisoners in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo set the stage
> > for torture there
> > http://hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/2.htm. The Rumsfeld approved
> > Guantanamo torture techniques were then imported to Iraq in August
> > 2003, where the International Committee of the Red Cross found
> > "systemic" mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in
> > several facilities and where the Schlesinger Report confirmed in
> > August 2004 that abuses were "widespread" and "serious both in number
> > and in effect," and that there is both "institutional and personal
> > responsibility at higher levels;"
> >
> > 8. approved at least two different illegal electronic surveillance
> > programs of American citizens without a warrant in violation of the
> > fourth amendment and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence
> > Surveillance Act of 1978, and repeatedly lied to the American people
> > by stating that no surveillance was taking place without a court
> > order. The first
> > program includes intercepting phone and email conversations without
> > warrants and was exposed by the NY Times on December 16, 2005
> > http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_15cnd-program.html. After that
> > program
> > was exposed Bush said the program was carefully targeted to just
> > include international calls and suspected members of Al Qaeda. Then,
> > the second program was exposed by
> > USA Today on May 11, 2006. It provides a wholesale attack on the
> > fourth amendment by
> > recording call identification information of tens of millions of
> > purely domestic calls as well as international calls
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm;
> >
> > 9. attacked basic human rights protections in the constitution
> > including habeas corpus, fifth amendment freedom from loss of life,
> > liberty and property without due process of law, eighth amendment
> > freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and fourth
> > amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizure;
> >
> > 10. attacked the separation of powers in an effort to consolidate
> > power in the executive;
> >
> > 11. attacked the messenger who revealed that Bush "twisted"
> > intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Just as Nixon
> > retaliated against former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg, according to papers
> > filed in court by special
> > prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in April 2006, there was "concerted
> > action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish
> > or seek revenge against" former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for his July
> > 6, 2003 NY Times op ed piece
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007
> > that ripped the cover off of Bush's false assertions in his 2003 state
> > of the union address that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa
> > for building a
> > nuclear bomb. In retaliation, and to silence other would-be critics,
> > the White House
> > collected information about Wilson and disclosed to reporters that his
> > wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert agent in the CIA counterinsurgency
> > division, putting her life, and the lives of her contacts, at risk in
> > violation of a US law protecting intelligence personnel (The
> > Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman);
> >
> > 12. as the sole person under the Federal Stafford Act with
> > responsibility and authority to issue emergency orders to mobilize the
> > military and any federal resources needed to aid and assist in a
> > disaster (see Failure of Initiative, February 2006 report of the House
> > Select Bipartisan Committee to investigate the Preparations for and
> > the Response to Hurricane Katrina http://katrina.house.gov/), Bush
> > failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, violated the
> > public trust, and demonstrated reckless and inexcusable
> > indifference to human life before, during and after Hurricane Katrina.
> > Bush knew but did not act until too late, and then he lied about it on
> > national TV. Footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31
> > demonstrate that Bush was personally told well in advance of the
> > "unprecedented strength" of the hurricane, the "devastating damage
> > expected," and that "water shortages will make human suffering
> > incredible," according to highly accurate predictions by the National
> > Weather Service. The Associated Press reported that "in dramatic and
> > sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President
> > Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck
> > that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans'
> > Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video
> > footage," http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18079.
> > Yet Bush failed to muster resources to evacuate residents in advance
> > and failed to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina
> > hit. Then three days later Bush told Good Morning America, "I don't
> > think that anybody
> > anticipated a breach of the levees." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> > dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202130.html In years before
> > the storm Bush demonstrated inexcusable criminal negligence and
> > violated the public trust by cutting the
> > budget for hurricane defense, though the high probability of the
> > breaching of the levees and the enormous risk to human life from a
> > major hurricane hitting New Orleans
> > were predicted and well known for years before the hurricane hit
> > http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html ;
> >
> > 13. failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed by
> > issuing signing statements
> > that claim the authority to disobey laws based on the president's own
> > interpretation of their constitutionality, and then by taking action
> > in violation of these laws, including the US law making torture a
> > crime, laws regarding Congressional oversight that require providing
> > information to Congress, laws regarding domestic spying, laws
> > regarding civil liberties, and laws strengthening whistle blower
> > protection, thereby expanding the
> > president's own power by stepping into the legislative and judicial
> > functions at the expense of Congress and the courts, upsetting the
> > balance among the three branches of government, and moving us away
> > from the rule of law toward vastly increased executive
> > power;
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_l
> > aws/ and
> >
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
> ;
> >
> > 14. converted the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican
> > Party by firing meritorious federal prosecutors who refused to base
> > decisions on whom to prosecute
> > on political considerations--to help Republicans win election, an offense
> James
> > Madison discussed in a speech to the Senate on June 17, 1789, in which
> > Madison said, "The danger then consists merely in this, the president
> > can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be
> > continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel
> > for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to
> > prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house,
> > before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I
> > contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject
> > him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust."
> > http://www.gwu.edu/~ffcp/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=fc11904
> > http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/113/print/;
> >
> > 15. condoned criminal conduct and obstructed justice by commuting the
> > sentence of convicted perjurer Scooter Libby to keep him silent and to
> > demonstrate that Bush
> > and Cheney will not allow high officials in the administration to be
> > held accountable for
> > their criminal acts;
> >
> > 16. obstructed congressional investigations of these and other acts by
> > the administration by defying subpoenas from Senate and House
> > committees seeking documents and testimony under oath by
> > administration officials and former administration officials; and
> >
> > Whereas the constitution requires the president to take the following
> > oath of office: "I do
> > solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the
> > President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
> > preserve, protect and defend the
> > Constitution of the United States;" and
> >
> > Whereas the constitution provides that the president "shall take Care
> > that the Laws be faithfully executed;" and
> >
> > Whereas the constitution mandates that "the President, Vice President
> > and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
> > Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
> > other high Crimes and Misdemeanors;" and
> >
> > Whereas impeachment was so important to our founding fathers that it
> > is mentioned six times in five different sections of the constitution;
> > and
> >
> > Whereas George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that
> > impeachment was the single most important part of the entire document.
> > "Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it
> > who can commit the most extensive injustice?"
> > http://gunstonhall.org/georgemason/constitution.html July 20, 1787; and
> >
> > Whereas "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a term of art that means a
> > serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that
> > endangers our constitutional system of government, or an abuse of
> > public trust. (See Constitutional Grounds for Presidential
> > Impeachment: Report of the House Judiciary Committee, 1974,
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm,
> > articles by Elizabeth Holzman who served on the House Judiciary
> > Committee during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon in 1974
> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman; and
> > http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070212&s=holtzman, and the
> book, The
> > Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman)
> >
> > Whereas each of the above listed acts meets or exceeds that standard; and
> >
> > Whereas impeachment is the only constitutional method to protect
> > Americans from a president intent on abusing power, violating the
> > constitution, violating the laws, and breaching public trust; and
> >
> > Whereas Bush and Cheney threaten further crimes, including launching a
> > war of aggression against Iran, and whereas sufficient time remains in
> > their term of office for them to commit those crimes so allowing
> > either or both of them to remain in office for that remaining time
> > will facilitate these crimes, and whereas pretexts for attacking Iran
> > have been issued, as described by a former CIA Middle East field
> > officer and current Time Magazine columnist
> > http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1654188,00.html ; and
> >
> > Whereas failing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable not only condones
> > their crimes but
> > facilitates a future president committing similar or greater crimes; and
> >
> > Whereas members of Congress swear an oath to "support and defend the
> > constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
> > domestic," and no part of this oath permits exception for partisan
> > advantage, the next election, political expediency, whether it is
> > distracting from other issues, or how much time they have left in
> > office; and
> >
> > Whereas failure by Congress to initiate the one
> > remedy--impeachment--provided by our
> > founding fathers to protect the constitution from such serious abuses
> > has put that constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties, our
> > democratic form of government, the
> > separation of powers, the lives of our men and women in uniform, and
> > the lives of countless civilians at severe risk; and
> >
> > Whereas citizen pressure led the Vermont State Senate and 87 cities
> > and towns around the nation to pass impeachment resolutions; and
> >
> > Whereas a poll conducted by http://www.americanresearchgroup.com on
> > July 5, 2007 found that 54% of American adults want the US House of
> > Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice
> > President Dick Cheney while only 40% oppose,
> > and whereas the poll also found that 45% are in favor of the same
> > thing for President
> > George W. Bush while 46% oppose; and
> >
> > Whereas in view Congress' ongoing complicity with the war, the
> > torture, the lies, the warrantless wiretapping, and the imprisonment
> > without trial, and its failure to protect rights and civil liberties,
> > it is up to the people themselves to defend the constitution and our
> > civil liberties by building larger grassroots movements, including a
> > movement for impeachment;
> >
> > Therefore be it resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls upon
> > the U.S. House of
> > Representatives to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings, to
> > investigate the charges, and if the investigation supports the
> > charges, to vote to impeach George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney as
> > provided in the Constitution of the United States of America; and
> >
> > Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will establish
> > an NLG Impeachment Committee open to all members to coordinate action
> > by the NLG in
> > support of impeachment, to work with national and grassroots
> > impeachment organizations, and to provide legal assistance for those
> > efforts to strengthen the national campaign for impeachment; and
> >
> > Be it further resolved that the NLG Impeachment Committee will help
> > organize and coordinate events at the local, state, and national level
> > to build public participation in the campaign to initiate impeachment
> > investigation, impeachment, and removal of Bush
> > and Cheney from office without further delay; and
> >
> > Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on NLG
> > members to ask their
> > respective member of Congress to support H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney
> > and to introduce or support other impeachment resolutions; and
> >
> > Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on all
> > other state and national bar associations, state and local government
> > bodies, community organizations, labor unions, and all other citizen
> > associations to adopt similar resolutions and to use all their
> > resources to build the campaign demanding that Congress initiate
> > impeachment investigation, impeach, and remove Bush and Cheney from
> > office without further delay; and
> >
> > Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will forward a
> > copy of this resolution to the Speaker and the Clerk of the US House
> > of Representatives, to
> > Representative John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee,
> > to the various state and federal bar associations, to other peace and
> > justice organizations, and to the news media.
> >
> > Implementation: By the NLG Impeachment Committee established by this
> > resolution, by
> > interested local chapters, and by national officers.
> >
> > Submitted by: James Marc Leas, jolly39@juno.com
> >
> > The resolution cosponsors are: Audrey Bomse, Marjorie Cohn, Laura
> > Safer Espinoza, John Wheat Gibson , Eileen Hansen, Larry Hildes, Jim
> > Klimaski, Jordan Kushner, Jim Lafferty, James Marc Leas, Kerry McLean,
> > Bill Monning, Dorinda Moreno, Michael Ratner, Susan Scott, Jennifer
> > Van Bergen, Aaron Varhola, Karen Weill
> >
> > **
> > 3) Green Nominating Convention moved to Sunday, January 13, at 1 pm in
> > the Norwalk Public Library auditorium, 1 Belden Avenue, Norwalk:
> >
> > From: dbedellgreen@hotmail.com
> > To: lead@po.state.ct.us
> > Subject: 4th CD nominating meeting POSTPONED to 1/13/08
> > Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:55:21 +0000
> >
> > A second candidate, Gerry Falbel, has announced he is seeking the
> > nomination, so to allow both Gerry and Richard Duffee to make
> > presentations, we have recheduled the meeting to Sunday, Jan. 13.
> > Sorry for any confusion.
> >
> > The meeting is open to observers, and Green Party members are
> > encouraged to attend. Party members in the 4th Congressional District
> > may vote.
> >
> > For details and to RSVP, please visit
> > http://www.evite.com/app/publicUrl/NYUJQNNXBWVJAWAASQMA/4thCDnomination
> >
> > January 2, 2008
> >
> >
> > Legislation and Elections Administration Division
> > Secretary of the State
> > PO Box 150470
> > Hartford CT 06115-0470
> >
> > RE: RESCHEDULING OF NOMINATING MEETING
> >
> >
> > To Whom It May Concern:
> >
> > The meeting previously scheduled for January 5 has been postponed to
> > January 13 in order to accommodate both announced candidates seeking
> > the nomination.
> >
> > Pursuant to CT General Statutes Sec. 9-452a, as Secretary of the
> > Fairfield County chapter of the CT Green Party, I hereby provide
> > statutory notice of a Party nominating meeting to be held:
> >
> > Date: Sunday, January 13, 2008
> > Time: 1:00 PM
> > Location: Norwalk Public Library (2nd floor auditorium), 1 Belden
> > Ave., Norwalk, CT
> > Purpose: Nominate candidate for U.S. Congress representing CT's 4th
> District
> >
> > Nominations shall be accepted from the floor. Anyone who meets the
> > requirements of membership as defined by the bylaws of the CT Green
> > Party, who resides within CT's 4th Congressional District and is
> > present at the meeting is eligible to vote. The nominees must receive
> > support from a simple majority of those who actually vote. If there is
> > more than one person nominated for the same office, instant runoff
> > voting will be used and abstentions will not be counted as votes.
> >
> > Respectfully submitted,
> >
> >
> >
> > David Bedell, Secretary
> > Fairfield County Chapter, CT Green Party
> >
>
>
