The Joy of Lobbying/Talking Impeachment with Jerry Nadler

[babylonsister]

The Joy of Lobbying/Talking Impeachment with Jerry Nadler
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-09-14 22:25. Impeachment

By conchita

snip//

Nadler opened the meeting by recognizing our request that several members of the group be allowed to present our positions on impeachment. Many of us had heard the Congressman speak at various club meetings over the recess and were familiar with his stand on impeachment and wanted the opportunity to learn more about it and to tell him where we stood. In the discussion that ensued we learned the
Nadler’s position on impeachment is not easily summed up as simply pro or against. On the one hand, he believes the President and Vice President have committed impeachable offenses and he would like to see them impeached. On the other, he says that he does not believe that impeachment should happen now and the following explains why and what we can do about it.

Much to the chagrin of many, Nadler made it clear that he does not see H. Res. 333 as a path to impeachment. He pointed instead to a new resolution that would be drafted by the Judiciary Committee, emphasizing that impeachment would only happen with the support of the Democratic leadership. He explained that the Rules Committee controls which bills make it onto the agenda. He also clarified a misconception he had read in the blogs (yes he does read us) that he has the power to move impeachment forward, reiterating that it will not happen without Pelosi and Conyers. He commended us for holding him accountable and impressed upon us the need to keep the pressure on the Dem leadership.

One of Nadler’s concerns about moving ahead with impeachment now is that he does not think they have ironclad proof that Bush Cheney lied us into the war. He was emphatic about this, and when questioned said that they need to be able to prove that BushCheney deliberately and knowingly lied. He told us that they are conducting investigations geared towards finding ironclad proof and would continue to carry on investigations seeking more evidence for impeachable offenses, but unless something cataclysmic happened he did not expect to have more evidence until the end of the year. At the same time, Nadler said that he thinks they have definitive proof on warrantless wiretapping, and that he would vote for it, but did not believe enough of his colleagues would. He qualified these statements with "right now" saying that he is not closing his mind about it.

Given that he expects investigations to take the rest of the year, if impeachment hearings happen they will start around January/February in the middle of primary season. Nadler questions if it would serve the country’s interest to rivet attention on impeachment when it should be choosing a Presidential candidates. We of course told him how important it was to introduce the issues surrounding impeachment – the abuse of executive privilege and signing statements, the erosion of civil liberties, the disruption of the balance of power between branches of government, the condoning and permitting of torture – into the Presidential election discussion. For many of us the issue of precedent is paramount in the impeachment agenda. Nadler agreed, stating that we needed to vindicate the rule of law and to remove these powers from "the quiver of the next President, Democrat or Republican." He also indicated that they are working on legislation to reign in the powers of the Executive.

Nadler’s other concern about impeachment is success in the Senate. He posed this question almost as if he was thinking out loud: "What is the point, cost/benefit, of carrying on impeachment proceedings that will not succeed?" He doesn’t see a good answer to this, but at the same time concedes the importance of addressing the offenses committed by this administration. It is our firm belief, as we told him, that conducting the hearings and bringing the offenses into the public eye and forcing discussion in the media would be sufficient to garner the support of the country and the Senate. We also questioned why he would assume out of hand that they would not succeed, impressing upon him that as people became educated about what has been going on with our government, there would be a groundswell of support. Earlier in the month at a VID meeting, Nadler had discussed the possibility of bringing criminal charges against Bush/Cheney after a Democratic President is in office, but he backed away from it this afternoon acknowledging that a Democratic President would not be likely to back prosecuting the lot, wanting to be considered a uniter not a divider. At least he was honest about it.

The final concern Nadler expressed was about what impeachment could do to the Democratic Party and how it would play in the media. We impressed upon him that impeachment could only help the party and talked about how not fighting back had hurt the Dems, particularly Kerry in 2008. We also told him that it would allow the Democrats to take back control of the traditional media as it could not ignore impeachment. As I write this now, watching what is going on with Petraeus’ testimony and the upcoming vote, I am remembering how Nadler emphatically told us at the VID meeting earlier this summer that if Bush vetoed legislation for a fully funded withdrawal this fall, the same bill should be sent right back to him. I wonder as we watch the Dems praise Petraeus and the Bush Dogs get ready to capitulate, if he might see our point about how important it is to take a strong stand against this administration and how it would benefit the party and the country. We told him that afternoon that people had lost confidence in the Democratic Party and it’s ability and willingness to stand up for itself, us, and the Constitution. We are crying out for leadership and strength.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26763

[cali]

1. Really great account

making for really good reading about the thinking of one liberal dem representative, on impeachment.

Thanks for posting this.

[babylonsister]

3. I'm certainly going to be paying more attention to Mr. Nadler to see

if he even addresses impeachment, or anything close to it, to see if he's all talk or if there's sincerity involved.

[Me.]

2. The Very Existence Of The Iraq Study Group Is All The Proof Needed

The purpose of the group was to figure out a strategy to trick the country into war. Their job was to figure out what story the American people would 'buy'. This has been documented, especially as regarding the Plame matter.

Nadler is my rep, and before this year I have been solidly behind him. I have communicated my concerns and at least he responds, got a letter today from him about my concerns that * will bomb Iran.