McDermott (D-Wash.) pushes impeachment

[Newsjock]

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., delivered these remarks on the House floor Tuesday:

Mr. Speaker: For the last two years I have struggled with the issue of whether the House should consider impeachment of a sitting President.

... The allegations that would warrant impeachment keep growing. They have been illuminated in many recent books including The Way of the World by Ron Suskind, the book by Vincent Bugliosi, and the new book by Bob Woodward, The War Within.

Over five years ago, I tried to place an asterisk in the Congressional Record next to the statements about Iraq the President made to Congress. I was attacked for saying the President would mislead us into the war, but the American people ultimately learned the truth.

... There seems to be no end to the allegations and we have a responsibility to investigate their authenticity. That's why I am signing onto a resolution to consider impeachment of the President.

Read more: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/148301.asp

[gateley]

1. McDermott is an exceptional Congressman and representative for the

people of Washington and the country. I was so proud when I lived in Seattle and he represented my district.

If you have a few extra bucks, please contribute to his legal defense fund -- the story is at the link.

http://www.mcdermottlegaltrust.com/

[glitch]

5. Me too. I loved it. Now "my" Congressman is Doolittle! Soon to be Brown though :) nt

[gateley]

7. Did you move out of his district?

(I haven't lived there in six years, so I'm not up on the pols anymore.) :hi:

[glitch]

8. Well, I had to move out of Seattle for family reasons (still sad about that)

And Doolittle (soon to indicted) is retiring as Rep in my new district, and soon to be replaced by Charlie Brown I HOPE.

[gateley]

9. Well good luck! I'll keep an eye on the election and root for him! nt

[glitch]

12. Thanks! Amazingly he'll probably need it, even after all of Doolittle's corruption. nt

[gateley]

13. Where are you living now? nt

[glitch]

14. Near Sacramento CA. HOT. And no lovely Puget Sound or Olympics or Cascades or Mt Rainier.

Sierras though. :)

[gateley]

17. Oh! I thought you were still in Washington!

That's why I asked where you lived, so I could check out the district and see how Charlie Brown was doing! :7

I'm in NC and it's hot here, too. Before I came down people said "well you'll have better weather" and I said -- the weather was one of the reasons I DIDN'T want to come. We DO get rainstorms a lot in the summer which I like, and I smirk at people using their umbrellas from their cars to the stores. :) Seattle Snobbery.

Although there's a lot here I do like, I can hardly wait to move back home. Soon, I hope.

Oh! And about the mountains. I had a friend come visit and we were going to drive through the Blue Ridge Mountains. A co-worker warned me it might be dicey if I was afraid of heights. So we're driving, it's dark, terrific thunder/lightening storm, deluge, and we're peering through the windshield going "where are the mountains?" Of course, we were actually driving on them! More like our foothills. And more Seattle Snobbery. I'm insufferable, I admit.

[glitch]

23. Lol! Funny about the Seattle Snobbery. It hasn't rained here in MONTHS

can you imagine? I love summer thunderstorms, you're very lucky. Here it's dry, hot, there are frequent forest fires so often smokey. Lots of people like it this way but I sure do miss cool cloudy days and rain, even if it is just drizzle. They think I am crazy to love rain. It's weird. Oh well, I too will someday make my way back to the Great Pacific Northwest! YAY!

See you there :hi:

[Pastiche423]

34. Thank you for posting Jim's legal defense fund URL

I've been sending donations when I can for years now.

[alllyingwhores]

41. Woooow...sloooow down--what's the rush?

"Mr. Speaker: For the last two years I have struggled with the issue of whether the House should consider impeachment of a sitting President."

Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, what's the rush?

[rayofreason]

70. Legal defense fund???

At this point there is no legal defense, so what do the contributions fund?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDermott#Ethics_violation_for_leaking_recorded_telephone_conversation

Are the proceeds from current contributions to be used to defray costs associated with the court rulings against McDermott? That is what it seems like to me. However, nowhere on this site does it state that McDermott has exhausted all legal appeals and that the contributions will be used to pay off debts and judgements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02mcdermott.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

The site clearly leaves the impression that contributions would be used to support an ongoing legal battle. I do not approve of leaving such a misimpression in the minds of potential donors.

Bottom line - every dollar contributed goes right to a lawyer or to Boehner. If you want to show your support of McDermott by helping him pay this stuff, OK, but you have the right to know the whole story.

[barbtries]

2. he finished his remarks with

"Without accountability, a Democracy will fail.
Thank you."

yes. and our democracy is failing fast. i hope he gets a lot of company

[Xenotime]

26. impeachment is one step in many of rebuilding this broken nation.

[bobbiwilson201]

32. IN RETROSPECT: THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM

One would think, during this time of innovation, our President would have learned something from the past (insert snide remark: obviously, he was too busy to be learnin' any history). Decades after the Vietnam War, Robert S. Mcnamara wrote a brilliant book, entitled: In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.

I wonder if in a decade from now, Colin Powell will have the guts to write a book of the same type.

IN RETROSPECT:
THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK
FROM THE PREFACE:

"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."

"A fascinating and extraordinarily candid examination of the errors of judgment of the 'best and the brightest' of our civilian and military leaders during the Vietnam War. This book should be read and carried throughout their careers by every current and future military officer for decades to come."
--LT. GEN. ROBERT E. PURSLEY (USAF, RET.)

"Can anyone remember a public official with the courage to confess error and explain where he and his country went wrong? This is what Robert McNamara does in this brave, honest, honorable and altogether compelling book."
--ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR.

[AndyA]

3. That's great! Thanks Rep. McDermott...I wish I had a Representative

with the ethics and morals to do the right thing, but I don't. (Sullivan) :puke:

Thanks for doing what everyone else in Congress should be doing.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Cool! Dennis has a partner!

[rucognizant]

47. ANd did you get an e-mail from Denis?

They are throwing a R candidate for Rep. to run against him, with a $1 mil. warchest.
He needs donations to fight this creep!
I am tapped out, having to have my well dug up and the cap repaired before the ground freezes! ( On a SS income!) but pass it on,., Kucinich for Congress may just be THE most important election in the country...........don't be distracted by the pitbull in lipstick floorshow!

[Gregorian]

6. Oh happy day.

This brightens up our day.

And yes, Valerie Plame was revealed as a covert CIA agent. And no, it wasn't by one of the lower ecshalon employees.

I don't think we'll get impeachment. But it's nice to think there are at least a few who realize the gravity of the situation.

[man4allcats]

22. I agree that impeachment is unlikely at this point, but

making the case for it makes sense. Biden has already said he will pursue justice against Bushco if they are found to have committed crimes. If we actually manage to win this thing, the more people we have on board for going after Bush, the greater the pressure will be on Biden to make good on his promise. Of course we all know Bushco is in it up to their criminal necks, but in politics it always seems to be a question of having enough heat to burn the bastards. The more that sign on now, the better for us and the cause.

[pat_k]

57. Actually, it may be more likely now than it has been for some time. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3961601&mesg_id=3965026

[man4allcats]

62. Thanks for great feedback!

You will note that I have linked to your post in a kind of "addendum" to a modification of my post here.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[bobd0]

10. To me the investigation is the point of impeachment

Once the facts start coming out the rest just falls into place. Pelosi never got it or just never wanted to get it. It isn't about whether you're sure you have the votes, it's about reaching the point in an investigation where the weight of evidence requires the votes. At the very least the truth, or a more complete version of it, will be preserved for history.

[pat_k]

58. The facts are out. All that remains is to force an "up or down vote" on. . .

. . torture and rule by signing statement.

The charges are well-known. Heck, their torture program has become fodder for late night monologues.

The public has long been WAY AHEAD of the beltway bubble-heads. It is the Democratic "leadership's" opposition to impeachment that is responsible for any denial of reality that remains. (As long as Democrats oppose impeachment, they are partners in the Republican slap-down of the countless Americans -- the scholars, government officials, military officers, public figures, and ordinary citizens -- who have been sounding the alarm and demanding justice for years.)

The act of impeaching in and of itself cuts through the denial. In the language of the beltway "strategerists," impeaching Bush and Cheney transforms the "optics."

If Obama simply called on the House to impeach, public support for it could rise to as much as 75%. And by showing the fortitude and commitment to principle, support for Obama himself would not be far behind.

I don't know about you, but I've been hearing the refrain "I'd love to see them impeached, but. . " from Republicans and Democrats alike (if anything the Republican mindset is more amenable to accusation and punishment.)When impeachment becomes a reality, all the "buts;" all the rationalizations for inaction fall by the wayside.

The charges and indefensible evidence are public record. Bush and Cheney have offered their Un-American and Unconstitutional "defense" ("Torture is not torture if we say it is not. We are answerable to no authority but our own.")

All that remains is to force an "up or down vote" on their indefensible defense. (And Bush and Cheney may be surprised to find there are simply too few to save their asses. Even the most corrupt won't be eager to declare Congress -- i.e., themselves -- powerless in the face of dictatorial Presidential authority.

Sure, they'll have hearings. But the case is so simple it would actually be tough for even the longest winded to draw it out for more than a week.


http://talkingimpeachment.com

[bobd0]

66. The charges are out, not the facts.

And the facts are being systematically withdrawn. Only and impeachment investigation will bring what's left of the facts to light.

Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Thirty-two of the nation’s leading historians have sent letters to congressional leaders calling on them to stregthen the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The effort, led by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and joined by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the National Coalition for History, notes that while the PRA requires the administration to preserve presidential records, “it fails to provide an effective means
of enforcing compliance with that requirement.” (View the letters here and here.)

This effort has taken on increased urgency as the Bush administration prepares to leave office and may be ready to expunge the record on its tenure. Bush has already repeatedly manipulated and rewritten open government laws in order to cover up his wrongdoings:

– The White House is “missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office.”

– In 2001, President Bush issued an executive order “allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released.” Last year, however, a U.S. District Judge invalidated the order, ruling that former presidents would be able to “indefinitely” keep their documents secret.

– Bush plans to solicit contributions from foreign donors for his $200 million presidential library, but plans on keeping their identities secret.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/historians-stop-bushcheney-from-destroying-presidential-records/4588/

The longer that fool Pelosi keeps impeachment "off the table" the more facts will be irrevocably lost.

[pat_k]

68. See reply 67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3479564&mesg_id=3482217

[bobd0]

69. My point is, there is FAR more to be known.

We have only a bare outline of the criminal activity of this administration. A full investigation is needed to fill in all the facts not only for impeachment but for the sake of history as well.

[pat_k]

71. "more to be known" absolutely! It's just not necessary or useful "for impeachment."

Delete "not only for impeachment but" and we're on the same page.

We know everything we need to know to make a couple different "open and shut" cases. I think the simplest is impeachment for refusing to take torture off the table. Your mileage may vary.

Sorry to be a broken record, but I need to stick a knife in the notion that more investigation, either as part of impeachment or as a precursor to it, would be useful. It is the opposite of useful. It's derelict and destructive delay.

I'm so adamant about this because Members of Congress excuse inaction by claiming "Impeachment is a long and slow process." The notion that impeachment hearings would seek to "fill in all the facts" plays right into that bullshit excuse for dereliction.

Justice demands that we investigate and prosecute members of the bushncheney syndicate -- from the highest to the lowest. It must be done, but NOT as part of the impeachment process. Such investigations can be pursued in parallel by the current Congress or justice dept (sure, right), or under the next Congress and administration.

Of course, we are unlikely to see ANY investigation of the gravest offenses if bushncheney leave office unimpeached. Whatever they may say now, every Member of the House and Senate (including Obama/Biden) who continues to oppose impeachment will be vested in making sure the full horror of the crimes they enabled are NEVER brought to light.

This fight -- the fight for impeachment -- may seem tough, but our chances of winning this one are far better than our chances of making prosecutions of the unimpeached a reality. These coming months are the time for all out effort. Win or lose, every Member we motivate to take a stand and call for impeachment is one less barrier later.

[bulloney]

11. I wish he could take Boehner down with Bush as payback for that lawsuit Boehner won against him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. He's got a tape!

[Jefferson23]

16. I can only pray something would come out of this, but I doubt it.

By any chance does anyone have a link to substantiate information that Pelosi was informed about torture,by Bush officals, and spying, but supposedly could not speak to even attorneys about this and later found herself compromised because of it?

[pat_k]

61. She may want to keep international travel "off the table" if she values her freedom. . .

. . .I'm not sure whether or not I would advocate putting her on trial here, but any other Party to the Geneva Conventions could reasonably view her abuse of power to protect the war criminal White House as a war crime. If she travels outside borders she could find herself on a plane to the Hague.

http://talkingimpeachment.com

[superconnected]

18. Impeached isn't enough, he needs to be tried for war crimes and corruption crimes over

the hundreds of billions he has taken out of the US treasury and handed to his corporate friends.

I do agree that impeachment is nice but it's too late. Trying the crooks for their crimes is not too late. If we don't we'll see cronies from this administration in 30-40 years again just like they showed up from the 70's and they'll be bigger/better thieves in 2040 just like they got better from the 70's.

[Salviati]

19. He's my congressman, and I just sent a letter of support...

Of course in the section where you choose what topic your email is about, I chose "crime"...



Let's take out the trash before Obama moves in!

[judasdisney]

49. He's my congressman also, but he COULD HAVE done this months ago

[kmdemqueen]

20. Wow

why now. Don't they think.(I mean I am all for it). But don't they think it is a little to late for that.

[Phred42]

21. Great - where were you LAST year?

[FLAprogressive]

24. McDermott is a Navy veteran -- watch Pukes question his patriotism....

[2thewhitehouse]

25. We need more on board with this!

There needs to be a Special Prosecutor named now! :kick: There ass's out of Washington and into Guantanamo

[AnnaLouise]

27. Kucinich petition to impeach Bush Cheney

to sign the impeachment petition
http://kucinich.us

[KT2000]

28. The precedent of bush/cheney

will only be a stepping stone if this election is really as close as it looks or is stolen again.

Good for McDermott!

[RoccoR5955]

29. It's still not too late to impeach the bastards...

...the facts are clear and should only take a week to hear their side. After they are proven guilty, move on to prosecution. It would be nice to see all of Bushco, Inc. rotting in prison, where they belong. They are traitors, and should be treated as such!

[pat_k]

59. Of course it isn't.

Obama simply needs to call on the House to impeach to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3479564&mesg_id=3481805">completely transform the dynamics.

Impeachment itself could be wrapped up in a week -- and the 110th Congress has something like 17 weeks. (Not to mention the 3 weeks the 111th will have before the 44th President takes the oath.)



http://talkingimpeachment.com

[LawBoy01]

30. Don't impeach Bush...he's already hung himself

Impeaching Bush won't do anything but make us look as bad to Republicans as they did to us when they impeached Clinton. We are still a 50/50 nation, and if we are going to turn the tide in our favor impeaching an already unfavorable president isn't going to help us with those who are barely clinging on the parent-child Republicanism; it'll just embolden them.

[Phred42]

35. Lame - Coward - Chickenshit -

[w4rma]

36. I disagree. He needs to be impeached to set the right precident. (nt)

[rucognizant]

48. Connect THESE DOTS..............

McCaine & Palin running the country with Bush/Cheney already established Unitary Presidential Powers !

[Vilis Veritas]

52. Makes a picture.

Perhaps, Palin will get her wish and be able to give Alaskans their freedom.

I bet she loves the smell of napalm in the morning...

[Zhade]

63. Ah, another member of the cowardly Let Criminals Walk faction.

NT!

[lovuian]

31. I love this man

:kick:

[BlueJac]

33. He is great, better than that lame ass Baird!!

Impeachment is their duty!

[bilco5]

37. It's all in print

From the Chicago Tribune, no less. We don't need to look to far for the facts. We just need to stand up and say no to four more years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaksV2c6Pw

[bertman]

38. Better late than never, for sure.

Why now? Where has he been for all these long months and years of the Bush Crime Family's raping and pillaging of the country?

But HEY!, maybe he'll inspire some more reps to grow a pair.

[Festivito]

39. No justice... no America. /nt

[suffragette]

40. Can I just say how happy I am to have Rep. Jim McDermott

as my representative.



:applause:

[skyounkin]

42. See pelosi,

this is how it's done you waste of skin!

[Tigress DEM]

43. Better late than never.

[daughter of liberty2]

44. K & R

This is good news indeed.

:kick:

[Norrin Radd]

45. Proud he's my rep.

[DangerousRhythm]

46. Wow! Go McDermott!

:thumbsup:

[glowing]

50. Do you think if we Impeached, McCain would have a chance at all...

Even Republicans hate GWB. So, wouldn't the brand sully McCain's name? Or not..

I'm not sure, on radio today Nancy is still a bitch. Oil drilling is good. Oh, and we aren't in a recession at all... there are just hard times people go through every now and then. AND a 50billion stimulus package for the end of the year is just ridiculous?!?! So, did I miss something? Did everyone get a raise at work? Did everyone become richer? I don't get how they can lie and people believe they are somehow more wealthy today than yesterday.

Also, heard on a financial radio show that advises people out of debt yesterday, that he was super pissed off at the Bush decision to make Fannie and Freddie socialized.. the only person this helps is McCain.. since the mortgage is now controlled and backed by your govt. So, if you like your govt owning your home, be happy about this takeover.. and if you want a low interest rate, buy now. Thought that was an interesting way of looking at things in a completely unbiased way.. most conservatives are saying that this move was created by liberals in congress, and its their fault that the banks were going under. I'd say de-regulation and faulty loan schemes had more to do with that.. and seriously, congress was pug majority for most of this. They've only had 2 yrs in power and they are up against ass-hat Bush.

[robcon]

51. These hearings will elect John McCain.

I think McDermott is out of touch will the election-time electorate. Pelosi was right that a failed impeachment would have helped elect a Republican, so it was off the table. McDermott is off his rocker.

[bobd0]

56. Even a failed impeachment, which, BTW, didn't hurt the Republicans in 2000

Even a failed impeachment investigation gets some of the truth out into the light of day. That's worth it in and of itself, IMO. And with this current crew the truth would have been overwhelming enough to turn a failed impeachment into a successful impeachment.

The goal is to get the information into the public domain. The Republicans are good at it. They suppress or enhance information to their advantage. Pelosi's failure to impeach played right into the Republican's hands because of the sheer volume of information that would have come to light on this administration that they wanted to keep suppressed.

Now we'll never know, and that sound you hear is the sound of even more history being deleted, classified, or stolen and locked away ad infinitum in someone's presidential library.

[pat_k]

60. Yep (one thing tho, the charges, and the intolerable "defense" are ALREADY "out")

. . .

It is the Democratic "leadership's" opposition to impeachment that is responsible for any denial of reality that remains. (As long as Democrats oppose impeachment, they are partners in the Republican slap-down of the countless Americans -- the scholars, government officials, military officers, public figures, and ordinary citizens -- who have been sounding the alarm and demanding justice for years.)

The act of impeaching in and of itself cuts through the denial. In the language of the beltway "strategerists," impeaching Bush and Cheney transforms the "optics."

If Obama simply called on the House to impeach, public support for it could rise to as much as 75%. And by showing the fortitude and commitment to principle, support for Obama himself would not be far behind.

I don't know about you, but I've been hearing the refrain "I'd love to see them impeached, but. . " from Republicans and Democrats alike (if anything the Republican mindset is more amenable to accusation and punishment.)When impeachment becomes a reality, all the "buts;" all the rationalizations for inaction fall by the wayside.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3479564&mesg_id=3481805">More. . .

http://talkingimpeachment.com

[bobd0]

65. The charges and the information culled in an investigation are two different things

This is what I'm talking about.

Historians: Stop Bush/Cheney From Destroying Presidential Records
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008

Thirty-two of the nation’s leading historians have sent letters to congressional leaders calling on them to stregthen the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The effort, led by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and joined by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the National Coalition for History, notes that while the PRA requires the administration to preserve presidential records, “it fails to provide an effective means
of enforcing compliance with that requirement.” (View the letters here and here.)

This effort has taken on increased urgency as the Bush administration prepares to leave office and may be ready to expunge the record on its tenure. Bush has already repeatedly manipulated and rewritten open government laws in order to cover up his wrongdoings:

– The White House is “missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office.”

– In 2001, President Bush issued an executive order “allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released.” Last year, however, a U.S. District Judge invalidated the order, ruling that former presidents would be able to “indefinitely” keep their documents secret.

– Bush plans to solicit contributions from foreign donors for his $200 million presidential library, but plans on keeping their identities secret.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/historians-stop-bushcheney-from-destroying-presidential-records/4588/

No impeachment. No investigation. No history of the corruption, lies, and wrongdoing that are the hallmarks of the Bush/Cheney administration.

[pat_k]

67. My point is that we have all the hard evidence needed to make an indefenisble case for removal.

I absolutely agree that the longer the outlaws are allowed to hold power, the longer they have to destroy records of as yet unrevealed crimes.

But the role of impeachment is not to expose all their crimes. The role of impeachment is a defensive one -- remove power to corrupt by removing corrupt government officials from office by the speediest route possible. The shorter the road to removal, the quicker and more effectively Congress and the Justice Department can move on to the pursue a more comprehensive investigations and prosecutions.

A single charge is all that is required (or set of charges related to a single crime). The simplest, most egregious, and most indefensible case we have is their refusal to take Torture "off the table." It is the charge most likely to result in removal by verdict of the Senator or by resignation (to let Repub Senators "off the hook").

Even a failed vote to impeach or remove is "success" -- it gives each Member of Congress the opportunity to break the bonds of complicity; it validates the countless Americans -- the authorities, the public figures, the government officials, the military officers, and the oridinary citizens -- who have been sounding the alarm and demanding justice for years. Refusal to impeach is a slap in the fact to each and every one of them.

Here's something I posted on the subject of charges many months back:

. . .
Impeachment on any grounds is better than no impeachment at all, but there is no simpler or more compelling reason for removal than torture. There is nothing more subversive than their fascist fantasy of unitary authoritarian power they invoke to "defend" their actions. There are no charges that are more likely to result in removal.

Prosecution for war crimes is the prosecution they fear most. Their own futile attempts to find cover -- the public statements, executive orders, and signing statements -- condemn them.

"Drowning torture" ("waterboarding" to the propagandists) is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden under U.S. Federal Law. It is as clearly forbidden as "The Rack" and "Thumbscrews." Bush and Cheney refuse to acknowledge that subjecting any person drowning torture is immoral, inhumane, and prohibited in ALL circumstances. They refuse to acknowledge that arbitrarily seizing and indefinitely committing any person to U.S. custody is prohibited in all circumstances.

These laws reflect core and inviolable principles. Our treatment of the people who are in the custody of the state and the processes by which they are committed to state custody are central to our identity as Americans. Their refusal to acknowledge these laws, in and of itself, makes them a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

"Lying us into war," the central charge in Kucinich's resolution, is a weaker charge. Unlike torture, is not a crime in progress and they don't invoke their unconstitutional "unitary" fig leaf as cover. Illegal spying was stronger charge than "lying us into war" until the Democrats inexplicably "fixed" FISA. (They'd have a tough time making an effective case that the program is an intolerable breach when they've legalized much of it.)

[Zhade]

64. So let criminals walk without even trying to hold them accountable?

Oh, wait - you're a conservative. You deny their crimes.

[ejbr]

53. Welcome to the club n/t

[mntleo2]

54. Daaaang, he personally told ME ...

... two years ago that he thought (thanks to the Repig majority who stifled progressives big time for almost 10 years, (my words, not his) we had so many major OTHER problems to deal with that impeachment would take away energy from those problems, which was a good argument, but did not convince me.

This is a major change of heart. I remember an elderly woman who stood up a year ago or so at one of his events. She asked him why this impeachment was not an issue and he gave the same answer as he gave me. I am so proud that he is opne enough to change his mind. I think also he already knew what I did not at that time and as John Dean also told me, we do not really have a time line to prosecute. We can still go ahead and do it after these goons leave office there is no time limit.

And, like a circling shark, the Hague is also waiting in the wings as well. As a matter of fact they have told some of the present administration, "Don't leave your country or we WILL get you!" In a way the irony of knowing you could be snatched off a foreign street and sent to the Hague prison, like they are doing to anyone they arbitrarily decide they want to do, is kind of ironic isn't it? I LIKE it!

I have moved from McDermott's district into Jay Inslee's district now and miss Jim, though Jay is a strong progressive and I am growing to like him as well.

Cat In Seattle

[bertman]

55. Thanks for those comments, mntleo2. They certainly go a long way toward explaining his decision.

After all, those "many major OTHER problems to deal with" seem to have been ignored, put off, given up on, taken off the table, flip-flopped upon, or just plain shat upon by the Democratic so-called leadership, so I guess McDermott figured he might as well endorse one more fantasy fix-up idea.

Glowing's post just highlights the complicity of Pelosi, Reid and company. It's all so fricking infuriating it's a wonder I don't have an ulcer.

NO, ROBCON, the hearings would not elect McAnus. They would bring out into the open all of the lies, manipulation and treason of the Bush administration for all Americans to see. And they would make the Repukes look like idiots for defending them. Right now the only place you hear about this malfeasance is on liberal blogs. It needs to be on the corporate media. Impeachment hearings are the only thing that will bring that about.