Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress Hears Ringing Call for Impeachment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:32 PM
Original message
Congress Hears Ringing Call for Impeachment
By David Swanson

The House Judiciary Committee today, Friday, July 25th, will put impeachment squarely back "on the table" and restored to its prominent place in our Constitution.

Elliott Adams, President of Veterans for Peace, and a descendant of American revolutionary Sam Adams, will deliver this prepared testimony, in which, if his 5 minutes allow him to reach his conclusion, he will say:

"For us veterans, when our time came, we volunteered our very lives for this republic; for the principle of freedom for all, for equal opportunity for all, to defend the Constitution and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and to guarantee the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, Congressmen, it is your time, and I hear there is not enough time! Now is your time, and I hear it will not be good for one party or the other party! Now is your time, and I hear there is not enough political will around you! When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will, or how much time there was, or about any parties' political future, they were just worried they were going to be hanged by the neck. But they did what was right. Now it is your time to standup. Einstein said – 'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.'"

Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, and Chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, will deliver this prepared testimony, which begins thus:

"If President George W. Bush had knocked to enter the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, presiding convention president George Washington would have denied him admission. Thereby hangs an alarming tale. The executive branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much the barbarians vandalized Rome in 410 AD. The executive branch has destroyed the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances and raced the nation perilously close to executive despotism. The executive branch rejects the basic philosophical tenets of the United States. It does not accept that America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that sovereignty in a republican form of government lies with the people; that there are no vassals or serfs in the Constitution's landscape; that every man or woman is a king or queen but no one wears a crown; and, that the rule of law is the nation's civic religion. The Founding Fathers fashioned impeachment as a remedy for attacks against the constitutional order."

The first panel Friday morning will include Congressman Dennis Kucinich making a case for impeachment based on the articles of impeachment he has drafted against Cheney and Bush. Also on the first panel will be Republican Congressman Walter Jones who has sought to end the funding of the occupation of Iraq, and who has expressed support for former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's proposal to prosecute former President George W. Bush, once out of office, for murder. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a supporter of impeachment, is also on the panel. The last witness is Congressman Brad Miller, but as the saying goes, "Three out of four ain't bad." And we've been mercifully spared Congresswoman Jane Harman, who at one point was scheduled to testify.

The second of two planned panels is even better, and includes Adams, Fein, Bugliosi, and six other witnesses. One of them, Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York, will speak very persuasively for impeachment. Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights, and the former Mayor of Salt Lake City, is likely to speak in support of impeachment too, while also supporting other alleged remedies. One chronicler of Bush and Cheney crimes who in recent months has opposed impeachment is John Dean; he had been scheduled to appear but did not make the final cut. However, there are four witnesses on the second panel who may not help the cause of impeachment. Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, is a supporter of restoring the rule of law, but whether he'll advocate restoration of the rule of the Constitution we shall see. The other three almost certainly will not. They are: Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President; Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; and Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

The big unknown is which members of the House Judiciary Committee, which has 40 members, will show up for a Friday hearing. A number of Republicans have already left town, and some of the most pro-impeachment Democrats have committed to being present. Watch Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, and Sheila Jackson-Lee for the most likely statements in support of beginning a true impeachment hearing.

Some of the witnesses in the past couple of days had expressed frustration with congressional rules forbidding accusations against the president, rules deriving from prohibitions on speaking ill of the king of England. But witnesses have been able to work around those rules by referring to "the executive branch" and other similar locutions rather than "the president" or "the vice president." While Chairman John Conyers almost certainly has every intention of preventing the commencement of a real impeachment hearing, he and his staff appear to have opened this one up significantly to the obvious and overdocumented case for impeachment. Our hope lies in the likelihood that Conyers' calculation is wrong when he supposes that Democrats will benefit from publicizing the case for impeachment and not suffer for failing to pursue it. If the public makes clear its demand for action, not just talk, the door that is cracking open may be very difficult to shut. "Stop the preaching and start impeaching" is a cheer that may be heard at a gathering of impeachment activists outside the Rayburn Building immediately following the hearing.

The day before the hearing, some of those impeachment advocates gathered at the National Press Club, including myself, Ray McGovern, Bruce Fein, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Papermaster, and Crystal Kim. Videos of what they had to say, and their questions and answers with the media, are posted at http://youtube.com/afterdowningstreet




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks, David.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. Obstruction of justice. That's the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Sam Adams and Thomas Paine, my heroes. I would love to be
descended from either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. I AM descended from
Thomas Paine....I always tell people that is why I have so much Common Sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. will we be able to see this on c-span?
Is it being recorded?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. yes and
all questions are always answered at
http://afterdowningstreet.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. CSPAN 1, 10 am Eastern. Be there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm waking up the whole household to watch.
The teenagers will be forced to watch history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sounds like a good plan.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks again for posting this David Swanson!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Tell your friends. Tell your neighbors. Tell your coworkers. Tell everybody to TUNE IN TOMORROW!!
This is history being made.

Thank you, David.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thank you !!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
10. I wish I wasn't such a pessimist but Pelosi and Reid have been such huge dissappointments.....
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 12:11 AM by yourout
that it is hard to have hope that Bushco will ever be held accountable for their crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. You don't give up in the 8th.
And this isn't about hope but about work. Hang in, yourout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. yourout, I'm starting to feel like the process has actually started
This very well be the first day of the last day of the bush/cheney cabal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
11. John Conyers meeting on On 13 March 2003
Law Prof. Francis A. Boyle on Impeachment

Broadcast 05/05/06 Talk Nation Radio

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13000.htm


"Francis A. Boyle

...On 13 March 2003, that is just before the outbreak of the war against Iraq, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, convened an emergency meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to put in emergency bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and at that time Ashcroft, to head off the impending war.

He invited me and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in to debate the issue in favor of impeachment. The debate lasted two hours. We had my draft resolution on the table and Ramsey also had his draft resolution; we don’t disagree at all in how we see the issues. And to make a long story short the lawyers there did not disagree with me and Ramsey that Bush merited impeachment for what he had done and was threatening to do so far.

The main objection was political expedience and in particular John Podesta was there. He had been Clinton’s White House chief of staff. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and that as far as the DNC was concerned it was going to hurt their ability to get whoever their candidate was going to be in 2004 elected President if we put in these bills of impeachment. I found that argument completely disingenuous when the Democrats had no idea who their candidate was going to be in 2004 as of March 2003. We had no idea.


In any event I’m a political independent so I didn’t argue that point. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. I just continued to hammer on on the merits of impeachment. Now, Ramsey, as you know he’s a lifelong Democrat so he did argue that issue and Ramsey’s argument was the he didn’t think it was going to hurt and it might help to put in these bills of impeachment immediately. Unfortunately, the Podesta argument prevailed and those draft bills of impeachment are still sitting there at the House Judiciary Committee. I’ve been updating impeachable offenses since then sending it in there to the House Judiciary Committee.

So the main problem we have now is political..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. I wish I could recommend this post. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Thanks :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. We see how well that worked out!
John Podesta was there. He had been Clinton’s White House chief of staff. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and that as far as the DNC was concerned it was going to hurt their ability to get whoever their candidate was going to be in 2004 elected President if we put in these bills of impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Worked out well :(( No we've been hearing the same thing for
this election.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. podesta's ineffective strategy
many still support it. it is a sham strategy that seek to preserve democrtaic executive power.

Love the response: I'm an independent. It's not for me to tell the democrats how to get their candidate elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. You nailed it....
"...it is a sham strategy that seek to preserve democrtaic executive power..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. K
R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
14. Yes!!
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

No truer words have ever been spoken.

This is big, and I'm buying front row seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaybeSo Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
15. Finally!
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 12:52 AM by MaybeSo
Isn't it just SO nice that this is happening, now that the NEW presidential candidates are running? Kind of ironic, though I guess later is better than never. At least he'll leave in "shame", rather than the "honor" of being in office as long as is legal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. "Stop the preaching and start impeaching" !!!
I was wondering why Barr was invited! :wtf:

Let's roll!! Can't wait until tomorrow!!

Thanks for this information, David!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:kick: & Recommended

STOP THE PREACHING AND START IMPEACHING!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. buh-bye
can't advocate the defeat of a Democrat around here. You should've read the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
17. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
20. Impeach!
Anything less is complicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
23. kick and rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Just tuned in to the House Hearings -- Elizabeth Holtzman . . . love her -!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
26. Finally, a hearing
a non-hearing they say but a hearing nonetheless. This ole retired hippie says 'right on, man' :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
28. Clinton's impeachment was BIG NEWS
Funny how BushCo.'s impeachment hearing is barely mentioned by the MSM, and if it is there is a smirk and and a shot of that funny little UFO gazer Kucinich to make fun of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Coverage of the Clinton scandals taught me to loathe cable news.
That was it for me. They were at it day and night -- it was insupportable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. This was NOT an impeachment hearing
Who told you it was an impeachment hearing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
45. The difference, I think,
is that most of the MSM expected President Clinton to be convicted and removed from office. No one expects the Senate will convict this (p)resident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. I recall it differently
Edited on Sun Jul-27-08 11:32 AM by LiberalLovinLug
I seem to remember that there was always a lot of doubt that the senate would actually have the votes to impeach President Clinton. Which they didn't, with enough Republicans, when push came to shove, realized that they couldn't go down in history as one of the senators that impeached a President for lying about a blow-job.

And Freddie,
whatever it is called. Pre-Impeachment hearings (?). But it sure looks similar to the beginning of Clinton's with witnesses and experts coming forward to talk to congress. And whatever it is called, in any other country when the congress, or parliament or other equivalent is having a public debate and introducing evidence about criminal behavior of their leader to show he should be removed from office - it would be HUGE news wouldn't it? No matter what they call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. I think it would be
huge now, at this point in the mis-administration, yes. I was a little put off before this, because, as my Congressman explained at a town hall meeting, there are simply not the votes in the Senate to remove the idiot, and if there was to be anything more frightening than what he has been doing already, a Senate acquittal would be it.

This guy (and I use that term advisedly) would not have considered impeachment as an admonishment, but the acquittal as justification of all he has done. He would have felt even more empowered than he already does to shred even more of the Constitution, and that would be disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick and recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnowCritter Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
33. WTF is this rule?
Some of the witnesses in the past couple of days had expressed frustration with congressional rules forbidding accusations against the president, rules deriving from prohibitions on speaking ill of the king of England.


Ye Gods! It's not allowed to speak ill of the president in the halls of Congress? You're not allowed to call a spade a spade?

What a bunch of bullshit!

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadrasT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. And the stellar result of that...
Not being allowed to say works "Vice President" or "Cheney" outloud, in today's hearing Cohen resorted to calling Cheney a "barnacle attached to the executive branch". :rofl:

That moment alone was worth sitting through the entire proceedings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Don't forget bruce fein.
I think he's the one that talked about the "acephalous branch" (Executive).

If the Prez was removed that the Executive branch would have no head. :rofl:

Debatable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. yes, what the fuck was that? who came up with that stupid fucking rule?
can't say bush's name?
oh, but i guess we will know someone is talking about him when they simply refer to THE DRUNK IN THE WHITE HOUSE

whose ass did they pull that rule out of? and i notice bruce fein bascially said: screw that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Cohen was great!
lol

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
38. just read Elliott adams's piece
great. i'm working on bruce fein's and will work my way through them all heaven willing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
46. Congress answers ringing call: "Don't call us--we'll call you." (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sick Of Their Lies Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
47. He will never leave
Even when Bush is impeached and convicted he will declare it null and void as he desolves the Government and declares himself
"Dictator For Life"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
50. No, it won't "put impeachment back on the table".
Edited on Sun Jul-27-08 02:08 PM by Donald Ian Rankin
The most it could possibly do is put the possibility of inevitably-doomed, politically suicidal impeachment procedings on the table, but thankfully I think we can rely on the Dems to resist calls to shoot themselves and Obama in the foot, no matter how "ringing" they are.

Remember, 67 > 51. It's an incredibly simple equation, and it's the only thing you need to know about the possibility of impeaching Bush.

Supporting impeachment isn't "defending the Constitution". The only difference between impeachment procedings and praying to Zeus to smite Bush with lightning is that the latter won't further imperil the constitution by helping ensure four more years of Republican governance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC