The corporate media are disgracing themselves even further, if that is possible, on the impeachment story.
On Thursday, three more members of Congress signed on to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333), bringing the total number of co-sponsors of the bill to 10. That in itself would be national news, but there is more to it than simple numbers. The new sponsors include two freshman, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who ran for office calling for impeachment, and Hank Johnson, who took over the seat of pro-impeachment Rep. Cynthia McKinney (McKinney filed her own bill of impeachment against President Bush in the waning days of the last Congress), but the group also includes Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).
What makes McDermott significant is that he is a senior member of the Washington state delegation to Congress, a 9th-term legislator with considerable clout in Congress who sits on the House Ways and Means and Judiciary Committees, who chairs the subcommittee on income security and family support, and who has, in the past, said he was opposed to impeachment. While most of the other nine co-sponsors of H Res 333 were also among the group of 39 representatives who last year had signed on to Rep. John Conyers’ bill in the last Congress calling for creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration, McDermott was never a backer.
In a related development, Kucinich’s bill, which was filed back on April 24, amid an almost complete news blackout, and which has languished for over two months, with the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Conyers (D-MI) taking no action on it, suddenly was referred this week to a Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by US Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)—a sign that it will be taken up by the full Judiciary Committee.
Despite all these breaking developments in the impeachment story, Friday’s and Saturday’s news reports around the nation had little or nothing on impeachment. The New York Times, whose front pages and national pages influence the news decisions of editors across the country, has ignored the story completely, as has the Washington Post, which is supposed to be covering Washington—both astonishing examples of corporate media censorship. Even in Washington, Minnesota and Georgia, the main local papers only ran short briefs on the actions of their local Congress members.
But despite this journalistic lockdown, it is clear that the national grassroots impeachment is gaining power and momentum by the day.
Washington impeachment activists had long been pressing McDermott to join the impeachment campaign, but had been unsuccessful until this week.
His switch on the issue seems to have been the result of that pressure from his constituents, as well as from the latest actions of and revelations about the vice president. A powerful series of news articles that ran in late June in the Washington Post has disclosed that the vice president was the driving force behind President Bush’s decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and to illegally deny international protections to captives in what he has called the War on Terror, including captives from Afghanistan and Iraq, and to establish a program of torture of captives. Cheney also made the ludicrous assertion this week that he did not have to respond to Congressional subpoenas and requests for information about the activities of his office because as vice president, he is president of the Senate, and thus is not a part of the executive branch, (It is a claim that is contradicted by his own earlier assertions of “executive authority” in refusing to respond to Congressional requests for information.)
The Post's silence about McDermott and about impeachment developments is particularly peculiar, given that the latest developments are in part due to the paper's articles on Cheney's actions. Normally, newspapers are quick to point to or even grab credit for the results of their scoops and investigative reports.
While other representatives who have signed on the H Res 333 have done so relatively quietly, or in Rep. Maxine Waters’ case, in a press conference, McDermott made his move with a public speech in the House.
In that Thursday evening address, he said the vice president should “resign or face impeachment,” saying, “The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law,”
In addition to citing Cheney’s role in deceiving Americans and Congress into supporting an invasion of Iraq, and threatening war with Iran, which are the charges in Kucinich’s impeachment bill, McDermott cited Cheney’s claim to be exempt from Congressional investigation and his refusal to comply with rules for the handling of classified information as grounds for his impeachment. It is not clear whether he intends to file his own impeachment bill on those issues, or to have them added to Kucinich’s bill.
Johnson also cited the vice president’s refusal to submit materials in his office to control by the Information Oversight Security Office as a reason for his decision to back impeachment.
So far, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has not changed her position that “impeachment is off the table.” Rep. Conyers, for his part, has not spoken in favor of the Kucinich bill either.
But with seven members of Congress signing on to the Cheney impeachment bill over the past month, and more likely to do so in coming days and weeks, and with polls showing that the public both wants impeachment and is losing patience with the timidity and inaction of the Democratic Congress, it seems increasingly likely that their hands will be forced.
An interesting question will be when the corporate media will finally begin to honestly report on the impeachment story, and how news organizations will explain its seemingly magical appearance as a full-blown campaign in Congress.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
They will continue to treat it like a left-wing extremist movement. After all, as Obama says, "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority."
You see, things are not really bad enough yet.
If you go to Google, then specify news and type in impeachment, the first thing to pop up is Rob Kall's picture (yay Rob!), followed by an article on OpEd News by some fellow named Dave Lindorff. :-) That's followed by a Raw Story link, some editorials and then a slew of international articles.
M$M+Diebold=Bush
by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 663 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 3:02:12 PM
The only ones stalling us are those consumed with 2008
I wrote Sen. Dianne Feinstein demand that she back impeachment proceedings... I got a letter back from her office saying she wouldn't back anything that would be "divisive to the nation". How could it be divisive? if the recent CBS poll shows Bush has only a 22% approval rating. That more people are against the war than for it. Come on, we're 3 against 1.... we can do this!
What would these people have done in Nixon's time?
Well let's see what happens with Waxman and Leahy's investigations... hopefully Cheney will not have installed himself as dictator before then.
by
chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 134 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 1:30:09 PM
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said. "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."
This is despicable. Bush has certainly committed very grave offenses: lying into an illegal war, torture, throwing out habea corpus, ignoring laws with signing statements -- the list goes on and on. If Obama doesn't realize this he is a complete idiot. But if he does he is a lying fascist with no respect for law or the people. I don't think he's an idiot.
He is just echoing Pelosi, who in thurn is a mouthpice for the fascists. Just what the hell does Obama think the people's business is if not first and formost the Constitution, adherance to law and democratic process? The man is obviously a tyrant at heart. Another damned gangster.
A "circus"? Does he think the Constitutional Convention when the founder set up the basic rights and structures of this nation a circus too? It would seem so. He also refused to rule out preventative military action against Iran. This guy would be a disaster as president. He has a good patter and sales appeal, but no sense of judgement or common sense, or respect for American fundamental principles. The man is dishonest.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 5:08:31 PM
"Blacked Out by Corporate Media, Impeachment Advances"
"Journalistic lockdown" This is a joke right?
There are not 10 co-sponsors of H Res. 333; there are a total of nine as follows:
U.S. HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
Clay
05-01-2007
Schakowsky
05-01-2007
Wynn
05-10-2007
Clarke
06-06-2007
Lee
06-07-2007
Woolsey
06-07-2007
Waters
06-12-2007
Johnson
06-28-2007
Ellison
06-28-2007
As you can readily see, the list includes data from "Thursday", June 28, 2007 and Rep. Jim McDermott's name is nowhere to be found, so it appears he notified you, but failed to notify the Clerk.
What could possibly be newsworthy about a bill that only has 9 co-sponsors?There are 435 members of the U.S. House, 9 co-sponsors is representative of less than 2% of the total membership, which certainly isn't newsworthy is it?
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 5:17:49 PM
1. "I am adding my name to H.Res.333, calling for the impeachment. For the good of the Nation, the Vice President should leave office immediately. Call it a medical condition, call it a political condition, call it what it is; the departure of a person who forgot that he works for the American people. " McDermott's web site
2. As you can read, this statement is on McDermott's official web site, also dated June 28. The clerk's office has been known to lag a day or two.
It certainly is newsworthy especially since Congress has obviously been hearing from thousands of constituents in order to move these legislators! Local and state governments (including 79 US cities and 11 state legislatures) have been passing impeachment resolutions right and left. The national association of mayors passed a resolution supporting impeachment within the last few days.
Polling companies refuse to do a poll on impeachment. Normally, political parties or other groups and private companies can commission national polls, but the polling companies will not touch impeachment (or in the case of Harris will not publish the result).
This is a media blackout.
AfterDowningStreet.org has been attempting to purchase a poll to see what Americans now want regarding impeachment from major polling companies Harris, American Research Group and Ipsos but cannot get anyone to do one.
1. I "am adding" - that doesn't state that he added his name, it simply implies an intention to add his name. He can write whatever he wants on his website, but unless the Clerk is notified of his intent, he is simply not a co-sponsor.
2. The Clerk may lag a day or two behind on some issues, but this doesn't happen to be one of them since two others co-sponsored the bill on the 28th and their names are listed.
3. Everyone in the country, in the world, or in the entire solar system can pass impeachment resolutions left, right and sideways and it's all pretty meaningless because the constituents are not the ones that will be determining whether or not Cheney is guilty.
Let's assume that eventually a majority of members of Congress do vote for impeachment. Articles of Impeachment then go to the Senate and a guilty verdict requires a 2/3 majority of those present in the Senate. Assuming all 100 Senators are present and vote, that would require 67 guilty votes. Where are they going to come from?
Impeachment is not a possibility.
The media needs to concentrate their time and energies on issues that are beneficial to the people of this country. An impeachment trial is, in no way, beneficial to the people of this country because there are not the necessary votes to obtain a guilty verdict. Pouring salt on an already wounded American public is not in the best interests of this country.
The issue isn't whether or not Cheney is guilty and should be impeached - we all know the answer to that one. The issue is whether or not our constitution, as it exists, will allow that impeachment to go foward. The answer is definitely not.
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 8:36:51 PM
Forgive my sceptism but you seem to have an understanding of the numbers and the process of impeachment but you don't seem to have an understanding of how persuasion works or of how people change their minds on positions as new information comes to light.
The reason that people (citizens and senators and representatives) change their minds on things is because information that is new to them makes them changes their minds.
I can't see how you can possibly be sure that your fellow Americans will not change their minds if presented with additional information.
I've been reading your constitution. I've been reading Kucinich's articles of impeachment relating to Cheney.
Can you show me exactly what you think Cheney is guilty of and why YOU think he should be, if it were possible, impeached, please.
Please do not surrender as hopeless attempts to persuade, and please do not encourage others to surrender, until you have really tried to persuade Patricia.
Brett Paatsch
Melbourne, Australia
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 11:39:20 PM
"Patricia please show that YOU do know that Cheney is guilty and should be impeached."
That’s a very difficult task you’ve placed before me.I do not personally know whether or not Cheney is guilty and should be impeached, and it’s not for me to decide.The decision on whether or not to move forward on Articles of Impeachment rests with the U.S. House of Representatives.They act as “Prosecutor” on impeachment matters, while the Senate acts as Judge and Jury.
The charges raised against VP Cheney by Representative Kucinich are (1) that he intentionally manipulated the intelligence process for the purpose of deceiving the citizens of the US and Congress by fabricating the threat of Iraqi WMD in order to justify use of armed force against Iraq and (2) that he tried to deceive the citizens and Congress about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Representative Kucinich made a compelling argument in his resolution of April 24, 2007, but the fact remains that in our country an individual is innocent until it is proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the party is guilty of the charges against them.
I don’t think there’s anyone in the world that doesn’t know Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction and there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, so someone is very definitely ‘guilty’ of trying to pull the wool over America’s eyes, but is that someone VP Cheney, and more importantly can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
How can I possibly not have an understanding of how persuasion works?I saw how the people of this country were totally brainwashed into believing Iraq had WMD and how that belief was used to justify attacking the innocent people of Iraq.
Most people change their minds when, and if, new information comes to light, but Americans are a stubborn lot.We were eventually told over and over again there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, but when polled, Americans still believed the connection was there.
In the case of impeachment proceedings, its unlikely Americans will change their minds because they won’t have access to the material presented at the hearing.Unless I’m mistaken, I believe impeachment hearings are now closed to both the press and the public.
I’m not very good in the area of persuasion – as far as I’m concerned everyone has the obligation to keep an open mind until they do their own research on a subject.My research indicates that since 1789 the U.S. House has initiated impeachment proceedings 62 times, but there have only been 7 convictions and all 7 convictions were against federal judges.
7 out of 62 cases is a conviction rate of 11%, which speaks for itself.
Once a trial is over our Senators will have to vote guilty or not-guilty on each Article of Impeachment and they will have to vote based on the evidence that is presented to them behind closed doors (I believe), without outside interference.
Thank you for your comments. I think it's wonderful that someone from Australia in interested in our constitution - I just wish more Americans would take the time to read it.
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 1:10:16 AM
"I know you don't seriously believe your own claim that McDermott is just sayin he'll be a co-sponsor and doesn't intend to follow through."
Not sure how you managed to come up with the above based on my actual statement:
1. I "am adding" - that doesn't state that he added his name, it simply implies an intention to add his name. He can write whatever he wants on his website, but unless the Clerk is notified of his intent, he is simply not a co-sponsor.
Obviously if he stated on his website that he is going to add his name, then he will eventually add his name - the point I made is his name is not listed as a sponsor as of 6/28/2007 as indicated in the article.
"And what, in your mind, is more beneficial to the public than getting rid of Bush-Cheney?"
There is nothing that could possibly be more beneficial, if there was a conviction - I seriously doubt there will be a conviction.
by kstone (17 articles, 131 comments) on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 1:14:57 AM
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 9:32:07 AM
the movement towards nixon's impeachment started the exact same way. By the time there were 25 signers, things started coming together. Just 25, less than 8%. All it takes is a little bit of light to pierce the darkness. And all the darkness and gloom anyone tries to cast cannot put out the light.
by
Rob Kall (858 articles, 3987 quicklinks, 343 diaries, 1823 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 12:12:22 PM
I just want to express to you my heartfelt gratitude that there are people like you who are doing what they can to inform the masses of what is really happening and what needs to be done to save our Democratic form of government. Thank you,
Patrick
by
Patrick Roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 7:42:56 PM
P.Johnson, It appears you are far from ' with it ! " ...Did you not know that Every Journey is begun with just one tiny step forward ?? Well, This Mess Bush and his Bushites have gotten this Country into Was Not Done in one Day.. It was done with one sneaky Slide at a time ( Usualy when no one was Looking.) Congress IS beginning to Look NOW>>>They Must. The Citizens of this ' So-far' Republic is beginning to open their collective eyes. Thank God ! As for Obama... Everytime he opens his mouth nothing comes out that doesn't sound like he is parroting Pelosi's words.. ( And waiting to see what reaction he is going to get..before proceeding.) NO. He Is not the presidential material this country must have now..to dig us out of the gapping hole bush & Cheney , INC. has dug for us...and the whole world ( In Our name.)WE Need a GORE-Kucinich combination ..one that has intelligence and ability to act in a decisive manner.. [and has no skeletons hiding in the closet.] When GORE does Declare he is In the Race, he will find he is already ahead of the Pack of wanta-bes already present. No one else has more knowledge of what he would be confronting in Washington than he does. He'd be Ready. I am sure I'm not alone in my assessment here. YES, Impeachment proceedings should have been put into motion long ago against bush & cheney,Rice, Alvarez..And the whole bunch of Bushites covering for bush. Nine ""Is a lot more than two..or three..and Actually..One Should have Been Able to Get the job 'done. Patience has run OUT. VGF
by
VGF (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 7:58:06 PM
Well, I may be exceptionally far from 'with it', but I do know that every journey begins with one small step forward. In the case of impeachment, it also requires certain rules to be followed, and the rules are that Articles of Impeachment require a majority of votes in the U.S. House to be passed on to the U.S. Senate for trial. And there are many different rules that must be followed - beginning with the individual that presides over the trial, and ending with a vote.
In order to obtain a guilty verdict on each Article of Impeachment, members of the Senate must cast a 2/3 majority guilty vote on each article. If all 100 Senators are present that means 67 Senators would have to vote guilty and that's simply not going to happen.
This country does not need an impeachment trial that will turn out to be nothing more than just another slap in the face for justice.
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 8:45:39 PM
"67 Senators would have to vote guilty and that's simply not going to happen." Crystal ball?
At the least, we must try, the efforts must be known, here and in the rest of the world, we must get such votes on record if possible, and we cannot allow ourselves to fall into complete apathy, negativity, and conviction of helplessness -- which must always lead to failure. This is a matter of principle, if nothing else.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 9:12:50 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact I do own a crystal ball - actually two :)
I disagree on what would be considered a failure. In my mind, initiating Articles of Impeachment without a conviction would be a gross failure, complete waste of time and total waste of taxpayer dollars.
by
Patricia L Johnson (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 1:16:00 AM
even so, they are not very reliable. Gazing into a pool of ink is also traditional, but in this case it is into a pool of red ink -- a trillion dollars or more.
In any case, I don't see conviction as the only goal or motivation for impeachment. David Swanson brings out a number of points in this article. I will add that if we only investigated case (and congress acts as a grand jury during impeachment -- if they vote to impeach then managers are elected to present the case for impeachment to the senate) where we knew the outcome and whether a criminal would be convicted then thee is no point to investigating anything, or ever having a grand jury. That's not how the process works.
There is also doing a thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Regardless of the outcome, such action defines those who do it. At this point the Democrats and congress are defined as having no respect for law. America itself is so defined in the eyes of the world. That's not acceptable to me.
You say "initiating Articles of Impeachment without a conviction would be a gross failure" -- but that's utterly illogical: it's impossible to initiate impeachment while having a conviction just as it's impossible for convict any criminal of anything without first indicting him and bringing him to trial.
What we have is the most egregious and blatent example of lawlessness and abuse of power of any American president (and VP), and you think it's OK to ignore that?
You also say "in our country an individual is innocent until it is proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the party is guilty of the charges against them. " but that's not true -- that's supposed to hold for a criminal conviction -- although it often doesn't -- but impeachment is NOT a criminal conviction, but a political action.
The congressional rules say that closed session for material requiring confidentiallity, and senate deliberations can be secret, but the proceedings are public. In any case it would bring the known material to the public's attention, which is much needed, and would give some assurance to the rest of the world that the entire nation is not composed of criminals.
During the senate hearings about Watergate and Nixon public awareness was raised, and much material and evidence was developed, and impeachment hearings would do much the same. At first there was a great deal of resistance to hearings and impeachment, but public pressure overcame that. We need to do that again now, and the pressure is growing, and a large portion of the people demand this. This is the single most important thing which must be done to avert tyranny -- and also a powerful instrument in ending the occupation of Iraq. It's at the heart of what democracy and constitution is about.
You say"The issue is whether or not our constitution, as it exists, will allow that impeachment to go foward. The answer is definitely not."
No -- that's completely backwards: impeachment is exactly what the constitution calls for!
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 3:34:07 AM
