The real reason Impeachment is "off the table", according to US Rep. John Olver (D-MA)

Should we take Congressman John Olver at his word? If so, then what?

There are numerous posts in the blogsphere to the effect that Congressman John Olver (D-MA for 17 years), when grilled by angry pro-impeachment constituents as to why in the world he's not pushing for impeachment of Bush & Cheney, said that the real reason for Congressional inaction is that if impeachment was seriously pursued "Bush/Cheney would impose martial law and suspend the '08 elections". This startling revelation has thus far gone virtually unreported in any major media outlet that I can find, but one website and many blogs (especially the impeachment sites) have picked up on it:

"Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7307

Here are other links on the subject:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/11/17/p21127
http://impeachthem.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/todays-spotlight-by-kevin-zeese-shines-on-congressman-olver/
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/11/12/crisis-in-the-us-plan-b
http://www.impeachthem.com/?q=node/1564
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2007/10/no_impeachment_because_bush_wi.htm

Is there any reason to doubt Congressman Olver's statement? Clearly Bush has granted himself pretty much blanket "authority" to deliver on his threat, under NSPD-51 <http://www.ww4report.com/node/3940> to declare a national emergency, impose martial law, etc. whenever he decides there is a "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

By the way, NSPD-51 is the same "continuity of government" directive that has all its details "classified", that Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) was flatly denied access to seeing, even though DeFazio has every legal right to see as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2678/

So this is my question: If all this is true, then isn't the whole '08 election a thinly disguised elaborate charade designed to gloss over the fact that the nation is already under the thumb of a shadowy cabal of treasonous thugs who will stop at absolutely NOTHING to perpetuate their criminal agenda? Think about it. If what Olver says is true, 99% of what passes for "news" is nothing more than moving the deck chairs around on a Titanic with Cheney & the Bush Crime Family at the helm, no matter who ends being "elected president" in Jan. 09.

PS - This subject was broached on DU several days ago, followed by a brief discussion ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3736077

...but I feel it deserves much more serious deliberation on DU. What think You?

Haven't we had enough "oh, that couldn't happen here" moments already?

Germans before the Nazis rose up...asleep at the wheel. World War II...fall of Germany

The American people...asleep at the wheel...Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe Iran...what's next after that, folks?

for future aggressive wars for oil.

this is yet another reason that Dubya and Cheney should be impeached.

And do Dubya and Darth still have enough support in the military that they could count on a coup?

happen anyway.... The constitution will be suspended before Jan. 20, 2009 IMO anyway.

Let the White House declare an emergency and overthrow the Constitution. Force the GOP to reveal themselves as traitors. If the United States of American cannot survive such a move by the Bush White House, then it does not deserve to survive.

makes me all the more proud of Kucinich, and a little concerned for his safety if he ever gets anywhere close to the Oval Office.

then one of two things will happen in '08--

1. The fix is in, and Buscho will allow us the little charade of "elections", even though the outcome has already been decided

2. Something very nasty and vile will happen if someone like Kucinich or Paul make impressive showings in the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus and the Feb. 5th Super Tuesday.

If the fix is in, I predict the American people won't fall for it this time. We are in for some rough times ahead, I fear.

don't expect much response from them. And of course this Administration has Blackwater standing by to make sure nobody gets out of line.

"When the good old boys realize they've been had, they will be very very glad Bush protected the Second Amendment."

Could not agree more...esp. since I live in the thick of the 'good ole' boys'.

Bush wouldn't do that. And if he did, that'd be a pretty swift way TO GET IMPEACHED.

I don't even know if a president HAS the power to suspend elections.

how a president can cancel elections when the federal government doesn't run any elections.

clue what it means.

your demonstrated obtuseness in so many areas proves tedious.

and decide to insult, instead. Gotcha.

did you read the post.. this part of it:

NSPD-51 is the same "continuity of government" directive that has all its details "classified", that Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) was flatly denied access to seeing, even though DeFazio has every legal right to see as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2678 /

that if impeachment proceedings were started, Bush wouldn't all of a sudden go - "now we impose martial law so I can't be impeached."

Even Republicans would be like, "wait, it doesn't work like that."

If you impeach him on the grounds of his excessive use of his power as president, and then he, in turn, excessively uses his power to thwart the impeachment proceedings, not only will he speed up the process, he'll guarantee himself a conviction.

or some other "crisis" that will necessitate the imposition of martial law.

there will be another 911 right after impeachment proceedings are started?

that won't look to coincidental.

drills.

Look at the dollar and the economy, all he needs is one of the many listed reasons that affects the country...like the economy and he could be on his way. Its still not a legitimate reason for congress to ignore doing their duty and upholding the constitution but then...they are all on the same team, we the people, are the team they are playing against.

is not valid. Voila...declare a national emergency (terrorism), fire the Supreme Court, imprison your enemies, install friendly justices, then declare elections can go ahead. Don't think it can happen here? Both Musharraf and Bushy are "Commander in Chief".

only "as needed" of course, they wouldn't dream of trying such a thing again unless it was absolutely "necessary" to cow the whole nation again to their perverse wishes.

they are going to declare martial law. I don't think they plan on going in jan 09

that has any ambition or ideas of holding them accountable for the many crimes that they have been involved in.

unless they can slip Guiliani in with their electronic "voting" machines.

“The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.”

Instead of poo pooing it as a group on DU seems to like to do. This is very serious shit, and is just a matter of time before he attempts to pull it off.... I firmly believe that Pakistan is a test case that the US is watching very closely...

that we'd believe such crap? This is a total lie. They don't have the balls to do any such thing. (Although they could pull it off if they tried.)

you're doing nothing

Out a covert operative.
Illegally invade a sovereign nation.
Suspend Habeas Corpus.
Steal Elections.
Torture prisoners.
Shoot lawyers. (hehehe)

... I mean, sure... they 'could pull all that off if they tried', but it would be SO obvious and take 'balls' to do it.

There is no way those bastards can risk a total overhaul of all of the Cabinet-level Departments.

At this point, it is merely a matter of "when". And you can bet the farm that there is a tremendous amount of planning going on right now.

I just wonder what strategy they will utilize to destabilize and subjugate the American Public in what will basically have to be an overnight action.

Or is he that fucking stupid? Failing to do the right thing is failing to do the right thing, no matter how you dress it up. If he's worried that Bush will pull an "Achtung" and declare himself dicator for life, then that should be all the more impetus for getting on with articles of impeachment.

If it's not the real reason, then Olver is either a craven little nitwit, or he thinks the American people are craven little nitwits.

If he threatens it now he'll do it later.
If Bush tries to wear the fuhrer pants we'll give him the Mussolini treatment.

all the more reason indeed. However, I could easily imagine wealthy elites (GOP or Dem) being cowed by such a threat, and yes I guess they are that stupid. This seems to me to be the most plausible explanation at to why Dems seem so wimpy on impeachment.

If so, I can't see someone like Ron Paul speaking out about it. He is basically a Libertarian, and wouldn't kow tow to the rest of the GOP about it--and I think he would be believed far more than a Democrat would be.

"Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7...

She said that impeachment would be a waste of time and that making * and Cheney lame ducks was good enough for her.

There is the very real danger that * will declare some sort of "emergency," impose martial law and suspend the '08 elections. There's also the very real danger that he'll wait until after the elections, maybe even as late as mid-January to do it. He gave himself the power to do so.

That said, the Democratic leadership has stated consistently for about 13 months that impeachment is off the table. * only signed NSPD-51 into existence 6 months ago. It strikes me as willful ignorance to make the claim that the newer event is the cause for the older. Pelosi has stated the same bullshit reason for being against impeachment for over a year. NSPD-51 doesn't change that, nor, do I suspect it has any bearing on her reasoning.

Everyone seems to keep searching for why Pelosi won't allow impeachment and seem to ignore that she's been consistent on the issue for a very long time-- it's a waste of time, there are other, more important priorities, it's politically unwise, etc. The simplest explanation isn't that she's been terrified of the end of democracy since before * gave himself the power to make it happen--if she truly believed that * represents a serious threat to our democracy, then impeachment proceedings in the House would have started not long after HR 333 was introduced.

The simplest explanation is that she just doesn't get it.

There have for decades (Since President Truman) been "continuity of government" plans for US Presidents to do just that. NSPD-51 just greases the skids for Bush by dramatically expanding it's scope to include nearly every conceivable reason, including .. "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

So if something is considered by the Chimperor to be a "disruption" that "severely affects" say the economy, then waa-laa it could quickly become martial law time in the USA.

Besides, the NSPD-51 thing is just ONE of a number of developments over the past year that all suggest that martial law may be not far off: for starters, the multi-million contract Halliberton got to build "detention centers" in the USA, the creeping Sibel Edmonds expose waiting to happen, the Cheney impeachment charges waiting in the wings, the Waxman hearings on Blackwater, etc. These and other similar developments are forcing the issue for the Bushies.

It's certainly not just about NSPD-51, sorry if I suggested otherwise.

I am not a conspiracy fan. We have real issues to worry about.

... and from your posts, I suspect it's not very open. So I won't waste any more of your time, I know there
are so many deck chairs to move around these daze, it's hard to keep up.

None of the reasons they've given for not impeaching have any weight. Not enough votes is a lie. We wouldn't be able to get any work done is a lie. It would divide the country is a lie. Something has to be the reason, other than Pelosi is on a major power trip or is in love with Cheney. There has been a mighty resistance to the big "I" word from the beginning. It's a big no no subject. And it doesn't make sense, even when we've been dumbed down to believe we can't do more than one thing at a time in the this country. But you can bank on the fact that ther IS A REASON, and chances are excellent that we wouldn't like it, hence the refusal to talk about it.

Martial law? I can see it. Make a bomb go off anywere in the US which will be translated into a terrorist attack on us and it's a done deal. Martial Law is declared, all normal activity is suspended. Remember Bush has signing statements saying that in a case of national emergency he has absolute power over all the branches of government.

I think the reason it hasn't happened yet is because they've been able to ignore what the people want up to now. But it is getting harder, yet Bush has only one year to go. If he wants to declare Martial Law he will have to do it within the next 11 months or so.

edited to make a complete sentence.

and "we the people" are not being told what that reason is by the Democratic "leadership" ... instead, we are left to sleuth the web to collect the dots and then connect the dots for ourselves, since MSM is utterly & indisputably complicit in the whole charade.

People are all ready to believe that the Dems have been "bought off", or otherwise corrupted; or they have no spine. Maybe, we should believe that the people we saw great things in once; have not changed...they didn't all get weak-kneed overnight. SOMETHING serious has to account for such a large group not being able to follow through on promises/expectations, when there is so very much at stake.
This is the ONLY thing that makes any sense, and I applaud the bravery of the Rep. for actually saying it. I wonder if, now, he needs to avoid small planes.

Yes, I have been feeling that there had to be a more concrete, real reason - and here it is.

elections regardless of whether he is impeached or not.

We can't remove him if we don't impeach him.

our decisions strategically and tactically, but unfortunately i don't see that happening unless we put impeachment back on the table, and
call their bluff, force their hand and hope to be able to put them on the defensive instead of allowing these kind of threats to prevail.

That's the promise of the leading candidates...

troops in iraq in 2013 and beyond...

Kucinich is the real leader who's running for President.

Just impeach the mother fucker for chrise sakes you bunch of spineless wussies.

On the other hand, do you think Cheney would would alway that easily, leaving the Dems to come after them afterwards?

:(
rocknation

the repukers will have a damn good case to show Dem complicity in Bush's crimes. after all... look at Hillary's vote in support of the war. her continued support of the occupation. (and others too)

He's trying not to rock the boat of the obviously INSANE emperor with no clothes.
Hmm. This bears some thinking about.
Thanks for posting.

I fucking knew it! There is no doubt in my mind that these traitors are holding the entire country hostage with the threat of another "terrorist attack" or pretty much any excuse to declare martial law.

The thing is, if they don't move forward with impeachment, what's to say he wouldn't do it anyways? I say we fight toe-to-toe with the bastards, but if this is the case, it at least restores some of my faith in the Dems, who will feel more comfortable frog-marching the bunch of them after they step down.

Then what the hell did they run for Congress for, the pension package? I'm glad he said this but if they've let things get this bad it's their own damn fault and doing something about it is only going to get harder the longer they keep stalling.

I also don't think Pelosi sees it this way at all. She thinks she's some kind of corporate director who has to "get along" with her colleagues or else get fired.

If they're afraid of some consequence, then they're just afraid.

If they're afraid they'll lose some advantage, then they're just corrupt.

People are dying and being tortured as a result of their inaction.

There is no reason for that which can pass muster as "real" enough.

---

Congress's head!!

This has to be true, but it would be really, really good if somebody else would come out with this.

I wonder what DK knows, if anything, about it???