The DNC was rightfully concerned when Allegheny County coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, a democrat elected to office in 1969, was  targeted by the GOP. In October 2007, the GOP was (indirectly) the subject of a  House Judiciary investigation into prosecutorial abuses.

The DoD and DOJ emails show a pattern of Presidential meetings, communications, and direction to staff members. Mary Beth Buchanan was the leader of the Office of US Attorneys, 2004-2005. She would have us believe that there were no politically driven prosecutorial abuses. However, testimony at the House Judiciary Committee hearing shows the Department of Justice (statistically) was engaging in partisan prosecutions.

At the Congressional hearing, Wecht's defense counsel Richard Thornburg said, in the words of Philip Sheldon of the NYT, that Ms. Buchanan had "conducted a series of high-profile corruption investigations against Pennsylvania Democrats"

Evidence: Presidential Meetings

Buchanan's problem are the disclosed DOJ and DOD emails linking the President with meetings where Rove and Miers discussed firing US Attorneys and partisan propaganda. A reasonable person would ask who the White House counsel was coordinating the politically-drive prosecutions of democrats. Look at the lines of evidence linking the President to the illegal activity, which Congress refuses investigate in an impeachment:

The DoD emails also show the President discussing information warfare with key White House staff, and the military analysts. There is evidence that the President at at least one of these meetings did discuss using local prosecutors to pressure prosecution results:

NYT: "A republican lawyer . . . has given a sworn statement to the Committee in which she overhead discussions of how the White House had put pressure on local prosecutors to pursue the [Siegelman] case."

In "The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove," the author shares an independent
report stating the real reason the President fired Karl Rove: Because
of Rove's connection with Abramoff, and the House Judiciary learning
Ralston had changed Rove's calendar to hide Rove's meetings with
Abramoff.

Buchanan would have us believe despite her (apparent) involvement with
the US Attorney firings, she alone directed the FBI to do something. 
The emails between the White House and DOJ Staff show the
firing-decisions were well coordinated. It defies reason to believe
that politically-driven prosecutions were narrowly coordinated within
the White House, bypassed Buchanan, but then affected the US Attorneys
working under her 2005-6. Buchanan was most likely highly involved with
the emails, Rove-connected communications, and likely discussing with
Miers the prosecutions against DNC-connected democrats.

It defies reason to believe the President only put pressure on one case, but would not put pressure on others: The US Attorney-firing emails shows the pattern of abuse, intimidation, and retaliation was widespread, not narrow to a single case or jurisdiction.

DNC Has Stated Policy To Work With Elected Democrats like Dr. Cyril Wecht

It's reasonable for the Democratic Party and the DNC leadership to be concerned the President was engaging in partisan prosecutions against their fellow democrats. The DNC's policy:

The DNC "works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected
officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and
views of the Democratic electorate and the nation."

The NYT v Sullivan case outlines a short list of criteria to bring a libel suit. The moving party must prove "actual malice," which means "knowledge the statements were false or with reckless disregard with whether they were false."

There's a connection between (a) the DOJ OLC memos on the AUMF, FISA; and (b) the GOP-White House view of how prosecutions should be used to control the political agenda. At Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a August 2002 memo where DOJ OLC said the President had

"complete authority over the conduct of the war"

and

"The Congress lacks authority to set the terms and conditions under which the president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during war."

The above mirrors the Jackson Test. Chief Justice, when discussing the Bybee Memo at his confirmation hearing said:

"The President's authority is at its lowest ebb" when the "President [is] acting contrary to Congressional authority"

The Jackson test trumps the OLC Memo; yet this Congress through the FISA immunity would demand that we take the President's assertion -- taht something is lawful -- but ignore the Supreme Court conclusion that Bush used inappropriate force.

The Principle of Stare Decisis might have some believe that once
the Congress refuses to impeach this President, that that inaction
becomes precedent. Non-sense. It is not lawful precedent.

Once the Wecht Jury deadlocked, but the US Prosecutors said they would re-try the case, the DNC leadership mobilized. This was appropriate. There are situations when the President's actions -- illegal jury tampering and unlawful prosecutions -- must be challenged. This DNC did not go far enough.

GOP's Abuse of Party Functions: Domestic Threat To Constitution

Normally when elected officials are in office and they are connected with a political party, they tend to use their politically-connected options to win an election, but not prosecute a case to win an election. That's the difference between Wecht's apparent connection through the DNC to his seeking assistance; and the President's use of prosecutions to achieve a political objective. Wecht's been indirectly affiliated, as an elected official, with the DNC since 1969. That's nothing he should be ashamed of.

The GOP through the White House, like the Nazi party, has attempted (and largely succeeded) in amassing unchecked power. Congress, in taking impeachment off the table, would ask that if this President agreed to pardon Hitler for crimes against the United States, that Congress has no power to review that pardon. Non-sense. The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, decides whether the Congress may grant a pardon.

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.

AI S8

There is no Constitutional language compelling the Congress not to challenge the President's use of a pardon. There is no doctrine of "divine rights of Presidents"; nor is there any rule that the Supreme Court's opinion -- that Congress has no power to regulate Pardons -- is Constitutional. Rather, the Framers included in the Constitution the power to impeach all judges on the Supreme Court because they can be, in this case, wrong.

Rather, a decision of the House leadership not to define new rules regulating how a pardon is or isn't granted would arguably be reckless, especially in light of war crimes and a Presidential decision to block enforcement of Geneva, or ordering the prosecutors not to enforce the laws of war against one of his agents.

Waxman's problem is that he's assented to the non-sense that the Vice President is "not" part of the Executive Branch; refused to override Pelosi on impeachment and not called for her Speaker's position to be declared vacant; and embraced the fiction that the Vice President -- on his assertion alone -- can be immune to Congressional oversight.

Alito at his confirmation hearing said:

"I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving impermissibly."

Today, that's what we have: America's leaders are behaving badly, and they aren't doing what the Geneva Conventions, the oath of office, and the US Constitution require: A full enforcement of the law against the President and those illegally abusing Dr. Wecht, and other Democrats for partisan gain. It's non-sense that impeachment is discretionary. In this case, as with Nuremberg, it is required, otherwise we cannot call ourselves civilized, must less legitimate. This President met with the House leadership in early 2001 to discuss civility. He and his loyalists within the Democratic and Republican Parties have not delivered on that promise, only handed us tyranny.

We shall not be compelled to accept that serving.

Let's consider the other view: That there were "no prosecutions based on politics." Surely, if this were true, the President should be able to lead an effort to bring a libel case against Thornburgh; or charge him with perjury for lying to Congress about the politics of this President's prosecutions. However, the President can't do that because a criminal case would mean Thornburgh -- to defend himself against a perjury charge -- must be given access to the emails linking Buchanan, Rove, Miers, and the President; and the President's discussions with counsel to organize information warfare and the politically motivated prosecutions.

The failure of the President and the US Attorneys to prosecute, especially in this environment is noteworthy. The President refuses to attempt to prosecute Thornburgh for the following impression left with NYT's Philip Sheldon:

Buchanan has conducted a series of high profile corruption cases against Pennsylvania Democrats in the months before the 2006 elections, including one against the former Coroner

There's been no libel suit by Buchanan against the NYT for publicly publishing these impressions; nor against Sheldon for his reporting of the hearing; and no Presidentially-directed perjury indictment against the Wecht Counsel. The only reasonable conclusion is the information presented to the House Judiciary Committee is substantially true:

There were politically motivated prosecutions; and the President cannot afford to charge anyone with a crime for discussing that illegal activity because that defendant -- to defend themselves -- would be able to demand access to Presidential records.

The implication is simple:

The President is illegally hiding evidence of illegal activity behind a cloak of executive privilege, and the Congress is in collusion with that illegal shield.

Rather than focus on the DoD emails showing the president met with key staff on information warfare; or the DOD emails showing a pattern of US Attorney firings connected with Bcuanan, the president's propagandists would have us beleive nothing can be done, there was no abuse of power, and everything the GOP and President did against Dr. Wecht  is something which cannot be discussed, examined, or reviewed.

Someone in Congress -- many in Congress -- have a problem because the Italian War Crimes prosecutor has decided that it cannot trust the American judicial system.  Congress has the power to restore integrity to the justice system with an investigations, impeachment, and full support of law prosecutions.

This Congress refuses. The Italians must do what the President and Congress refuse to do: Enforce the laws of war through either impeachment or prosecutions. DOJ OLC doesn't have a stellar record on the laws of war. Even someone who resigned go it wrong. Goldsmith incorrectly said there was no enforcement provision within Geneva. That's not true. Nuremberg precedents affirm the power of retaliation and reciprocity to enforce Geneva. Goldsmith, despite getting the laws of war wrong, still resigned. That should tell you something about what else he learned while leading DOJ OLC.

The Evidence

There's plenty of evidence there's a problem:

The GOP lawyers' affidavit saying they overhead a conversation discussing the White House targeted prosecutions;

The DOJ and DOD emails show the President had meetings with key propagandists and staff; and Rove, Feith, and others indirectly linked with Buchanan were involved.

Rove and Ralston's legal counsel are also on the list of military analysts;

Rove and Miers are on the emails for the US Attorney firings;

Buchanan is suspected of engaging in deception on the US Attorney firings, and might be impeached as a witness;

There is statistical data from a professor at the University of Missouri showing the President and GOP used the prosecutions for partisan objectives, not exclusive law enforcement goals

The DoD emails show Rove linked to the same people connected with Buchanan, Feith, and Miers.

If you're not happy with the evidence, talk to the authors of the NYT
and those who discussed the President's firing of Karl Rove. Talk to
those who wrote the DoD and DOJ memos and met with the President. Even
the President is disgusted with Rove to no longer want him around. The
American people should not be required to take seriously the same man
this President refuses to still be on the official White House staff.

The evidence is not in the President's favor on these prosecutions, nor in what some might pretend is a "non issue" on the President. No one has pointed to any evidence showing that a prosecution of the President would backfire. There must first be an investigation, then a decision what to do.

This Congress is complicit with this illegal activity. This Congress, in the words of Jonathan Turley, is in collusion with the President to wage illegal warfare, not investigate, and refusing to put the Constitution before partisan goals.

Congress has no power to prevent the State AGs or the local district attorneys from prosecuting Members of Congress, legal counsel, US Attorneys, the President, Vice President, or others for treason, bribery, high crimes, or other offenses. The President has no power to pardon anyone convicted of violating State law, only US law.

Our job as American citizens must be to accept that this US government, despite its many years of success, has failed, is in need of reform, is unresponsive to reform, and would have American voters and citizens believe there is no alternative. Wrong answer. The DoD and DoJ emails confirm there were meetings between the President; and connects the President to the same people ordering, organizing, and participating in this illegal activity.

This President is acting contrary to the Constitution and the Congress: The AUMF did not give this President any power to organize or direct anyone to target Dr. Wecht; nor violate FISA. As Chief Justice Roberts said during his confirmation hearing when recalling Justice Jackson, this "president's authority is at its lowest ebb." A low ebb does not mean taking impeachment off the table; but using the legal force of impeachment -- as a legal tool -- to challenge this President's illegal rebellion against the rule of law and Dr. Wecht.

The DNC's policy is to work with elected officials. It appears, despite Dr. Wecht's predicament, the DNC is leaving one of their own to dry, not taking his case on as they should in calling for the House to declare the Speaker's position vacant.

Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearing reminded us of the Davis-Moore case. This is when the courts "can't decide whether Congress has supported a particular exercise or not." This is one of the motivations behind the FISA immunity bill: To create confusion about what the Congress intended in the AUMF with respect to FISA. yet, the President's actions -- that of working through the Attorney General with Congress -- to update FISA shows this appeal to confusion about what Congress intended, is a ruse. The same ruse going on with the jury tampering, prosecutions, and the military propaganda directed at civilians.

There is no confusion. The GOP has induced the DNC leadership to not fully assert its oath, and assent to illegal warfare. The House would have us believe it has no choice; that the only way to stop a bill is for the Senate to get 60 votes. Non-sense. The House has the exclusive power to raise taxes. The House leadership could, if it wanted to, attach to all revenue bills the appropriations bills. The House refuses to do this. The House and Senate could also agree -- before sending a bill to either chamber -- to like language, and bypass the requirement for any conference committee.

If the President wants any money, he needs to agree to limitations on his power, as the Framers permitted through Article 1 Section 8.

No agreement, no money; no assent to the law, no tax revenue. Yet, this House is acting irresponsibly in not challenging the Speaker; and the prosecutors across the country are irresponsibly in not prosecuting this sitting President.

Chief Justice Rehnquist said in 1991 that "stare decisis is not an inexhorable command." Similarly, any previous decision of any Congress, Speaker, prosecutor, or US government employee to obey these illegal orders does not bind anyone to continue with this illegal rebellion.

Dr. Wecht is a Democrat. He's been an elected official, indirectly connected to the DNC since 1969. That's alot of history. But there are situations when stare decisis is recognized as being no longer applicable. This is when experiences -- as now -- proves unworkable; when the precedent has eroded; or it is a source of confusion on the law. We are in an unworkable situation. The Speaker's "precedent" of removing impeachment is not working. Nor is it lawful.

Marshall as FDR's Attorney General strongly supported the expansive view of Executive Power. However, Justice Marshall reversed himself. Today, the DNC must reverse the decision to remove impeachment from the table; and it must remind the Speaker that the United States government must be compelled to stand with Dr. Wecht in opposing these abusive prosecutions. It makes no difference that the government has declined to prosecute a second time in a second trial.

The issue is whether the abuse will be challenged. This government has no lawful alternative, but to confront this President's illegal confrontation with Dr. Wecht. Stare decisis is not something that commands respect; it is something that may or may not be respected, as should be the case when considering the Speaker's opinion on impeachment. The facts may show the Speaker is innocent of treason; that she is not in collusion with the President; and that she is not tainted. Then we can find out what agreement the President has with the media to dissuade public commentary on his illegal rebellion against the Constitution.

However, these questions cannot be answered until we start an investigation. There is time, but Waxman's run out of options. He can't get the Vice President to respond. Witnesses who promised to appear before Congress have refused.  Congress, despite a change in leadership, remains a rubber stamp.

Speculative Fears About Impeachment Investigations

Nobody has provided any evidence justifying any fear that an investigation might be a backlash for the DNC, the Democrats, or for Senator Obama in his chance to become President. It doesn't exist. It's GOP propaganda linked with this President, his military analysts, and their goal to continue consolidate power: Fear of action.

Someone needs to explain to the Italian war crimes prosecutor -- with the above lines of evidence -- why they should not expand their cases; and include the evidence linking this President with the Wecht Jury tampering and the malicious prosecution of Dr. Wecht. We have witnesses presenting evidence under oath to Congress; DoD and DOJ emails substantially linking the same names to the broad pattern of abuse; but a Congress that refuses to put its oath of office before the DNC agenda.

The Congress now has the power to compel the President to answer charges, but refuses; the Congress has power now, to make rules regulating how this President uses his pardon power. The House could attach a bill to all war appropriations mandating the President agree to limits on his pardon. Again, the House refuses.

Dr. Franklin said you have a Republic if you can keep it. This House is doing nothing to keep this Republic, but keep something else, far different than what the Framers intended. We have unchecked power, and no plan in the DNC to lead the Speaker to her legal obligations.

The American people -- now -- have seen enough. As Turley says, the DNC and GOP are in collusion with the President. The job of the public is to contact your local officials, your prosecutors, your district attorneys, and your state attorney generals and ask them whether they want to remain living a Republic. If they do, they need to start prosecutions; if they refuse, they might be targeted for prosecutions. Meanwhile, despite Goldsmith's assertions that Geneva cannot be enforced, there are actdive combat units engaged in direct hostilities against American forces because this President ignores the laws of war.

The public is not required nor obliged to cooperate with Buchanan's political prosecution of Wecht; nor is the public required to cooperate with this President's illegal rebellion against the rule of law. Yet, somehow, this leadership in DC has convinced Americans nothing can be done; that we have to wait for the election; and that we need to be silent so we don't upset the voters.

We are the voters. The voters get to decide whether the House and Senate has or hasn't done what they should. The grand juries and prosecutors get to decide the same. As do the war crimes prosecutors. This nexus is not an exclusive political decision. It is an issue of international criminal law and war crimes. If Americans would like to be free from the continued use of Geneva to retaliate against this US government for its illegal warfare, the time has come to discuss what we will do.

Are Americans going to come together, reject the collusion of the DNC and GOP; and stand tall in defending the Constitution; are Americans going to be silent, deluded to believe nothing can ber done; or will Americans use their rights to contact prosecutors and confront this President and Congress. Foreigners in court and on the battlefield are standing up to oppose this tyranny.

Not Americans. Americans would have the world believe they are lazy, easily goaded by propaganda, and not willing to reject what the Framers refused to tolerate: Tyranny. The time is now to reject this tyranny. Contact the prosecutors, make them choose, then we can discuss our options to defend the Constitution. There is no reason Dr. Wecht should have been subjected to political prosecutions. Until there are investigations, every American could be subjected to the same abuse. This President's abuse, and the GOP-DNC collusion will not end until the DNC-GOP and President are confronted with prosecutions, outside impeachment, outside Congress.

The Speaker Must Reverse Her Position On Impeachment, Or Be Removed

American Citizens Must Contact Local, State Prosecutors, Demand Prosecutions of this Sitting President and Members of Congress for Abuses Against Dr. Wecht And Illegal Prosecutions