Waxman Says He Will Keep an Open Mind on Impeachment

[babylonsister]

Waxman Says He Will Keep an Open Mind on Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-08-09 02:46. Impeachment

By Marcy Winograd

Congressman Waxman, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, told an impeachment delegation meeting with him in his Los Angeles office, Tues., Aug. 7, 2007, that he would mull over his constituents' articulate arguments, watch the Bill Moyers' interview on impeachment, and weigh whether there was sufficient evidence to, not just impeach, but convict Bush and Cheney.

Waxman told the delegation it was not enough to believe Bush and Cheney were responsible for high crimes; his decision to support or co-sponsor an impeachment resolution must be predicated on the knowledge that there is overwhelming evidence for a conviction.

Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, California's 41st Assembly District Delegates, the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, and the LA Green Party participated in the office delegation, while a group of impeachment supporters rallied outside, holding Impeachment is Patriotic signs and a 14-foot banner that read "Impeachment is on Our Table."

Inside, the 14 impeachment lobbyists meeting with Waxman offered multiple arguments. Marcy Winograd, the principle organizer of the delegation and the President of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, said the country was on the precipice of a police state with each new Presidential directive criminalizing dissent; Peter Thottam, a Green Party activist and the founder of the LA National Impeachment Center, referred to the many hundreds of thousands of people killed as a result of the Bush administration's lies that led the nation to war; Joye Swan, a leader of the Progressive Caucus in the California Democratic Party, referred to a sign in Waxman's lobby which mentioned the importance of a lone courageous voice; Michael Jay, Wayne Williams, and Linda Sutton, all activists with Progressive Democrats of America, reminded Waxman that he took an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution; Ricco Ross, a delegate to the California Democratic Party, said the impeachment of Bush and Cheney would redeem the United States in the eyes of the world. At one point one participant said, "Congressman Waxman, we are asking you to defend us."

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25571

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Kudos to PDA and the other groups involved!!

Every single one of us should be doing this while Congress is in recess.

And shame on Waxman for not knowing about inherent contempt.

[babylonsister]

5. I'm just glad he committed to watching Moyers' doc. Maybe that

will wake him up, though I wished and assumed he was already awake.

[ThomWV]

2. "must be predicated on the knowledge that there is overwhelming evidence for a conviction"

In a pigs ass. He doesn't need overwhelming evidence to get started, all he needs is probably cause to look into it. That is all the house side does, look into it. The trial, the part where overwhelming evidence must be presented, that comes later after the House uses its powers (unencumbered by nonsensical privilege issues) to pressure the investigation and gather That necessary evidence.

Police officers do not refuse to investigate a crime because they fear they won't find enough for an arrest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I wonder if the Republicans had overwhelming evidence against Clinton

Like, did they WATCH HIM get that blowjob?

[mmonk]

3. The evidence has been there.

The question is if elected officials are sufficiently moral to do so. A trial would make it obvious whether they serve themselves or this country when it comes down to voting. The truth is hard to hide from or make excuses.

[Terri S]

4. This is pretty sad....

Waxman said he was unaware of the inherent contempt power? Information had to be sent to him about it? Yikes!

[mmonk]

7. If they would quit ignoring groups like CCR and

the ACLU as well as constitutional scholars, they might learn something.

[AndyA]

8. I am normally a big fan of Waxman's, but...WTF?

The man didn't know about inherent contempt? How can this possibly be? How long has he been in public service?

And the poster above was correct: Waxman only needs probable cause to open an impeachment investigation. And we all know there is LOADS of probable cause evidence.

It is up to the Senate to convict, and with the administration pushing back against the investigations the way they are, no doubt there are a lot of crimes being covered up. It's an American scandal of epic proportions, one that makes Clinton's little dalliance in the White House corridor look like nothing.

I'm glad Waxman said he's going to look into this, but what the hell, why hasn't he already been doing it?

[UKProPeace]

9. Not long to go now until the elections...

...and people like this say they'll "keep an open mind" about impeachment....surely if there isn't already enough evidence for impeachment considering all the crimes committed then there never will be.