You wouldn’t know it if you just watch TV news or read the corporate press, but this past Tuesday, something remarkable happened. Despite the pig-headed opposition of the Democratic Party’s top congressional leadership, a majority of the House, including three Republicans, voted to send Dennis Kucinich’s long sidelined Cheney impeachment bill (H Res 333) to the Judiciary Committee for hearings.
The vote was 218 to 194.
Now the behind-the-scenes partisan maneuvering that preceded that vote was arcane indeed, with Kucinich first exercising a member’s privilege motion to present his stymied impeachment bill to the full House, only to have Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrange for a colleague (Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD) offer a motion to table it. The Republicans, anxious to embarrass the Speaker, threw a wrench into that plan, though, by voting as a bloc to oppose tabling. Since Kucinich already has 22 co-sponsors for his bill, it was clear that the tabling gambit would fail. As soon as that became apparent, rank-and-file Democrats, unwilling to be seen by their constituents as defending Cheney, rushed to change their votes to opposing the tabling motion. In the end, tabling failed by 242 to 170 with 77 Democrats supporting a pleasantly surprised Kucinich.
In order to avoid a floor debate on the merits of impeaching the eminently impeachable Vice President Cheney, Pelosi and her allies then moved to send Kucinich’s bill directly to the Judiciary Committee. They were joined by three Republicans, including maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX).
Now the hope of the Democratic leadership is that this means Kucinich’s impeachment bill will continue to be safely bottled up in a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. But it may not work out that way for them.
Whatever the explanation, this impeachment bill has been endorsed by a floor vote of the full House, with bipartisan support.
For the Judiciary Committee to sit on it now and not schedule a hearing would be a gross travesty of parliamentary procedure and custom.
Indeed, some House members not associated with Kucinich’s resolution are now openly calling for immediate hearings into Cheney’s impeachable actions—specifically lying the country into a war in Iraq, and threatening war with Iran.
One indication of the change in the political climate in the House is the announcement by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a six-term congressman and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, that he will call for the Judiciary Committee to take up Kucinich’s impeachment bill. This is significant because Wexler, no left-wing hothead, is not a co-signer of the Kucinich bill.
In an email message to constituents, Wexler said:
“I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband.”
“…Cheney and the bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people. We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties. The American people are served will with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the bush administration; and if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office. It is time for Congress to expose the multitude of misdeeds of the Administration and I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee will expeditiously begin an investigation of this matter.”
Also calling for prompt action by the Judiciary Committee in the wake of the Tuesday House vote was Carol Shea-Porter, a first-term Democrat from New Hampshire, who also is not a sponsor of the Kucinich measure. In explaining her vote to send the Kucinich bill to the Judiciary Committee, she said:
“It is the duty of the Vice President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America and to defend the Constitution. There is growing evidence that the Executive Branch has ignored some of our laws and has attempted to bend the Constitution to its will. Members of both parties decided that this issue is too important to ignore. I voted with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to investigate the Vice President’s actions in office.”
She characterized the resolution sending the bill to the Judiciary Committee a “strongly bi-partisan vote.”
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
For TREASON their should be (No Pardons, No Deals)
Dave,
I'm in the process of moving and will have to reregister in the same Congressional district. I was thinking of signing up independent and have mentioned that in a letter to Rep. Mike Michaud. I will have to research how he voted in this development for the moment.
I would like to caucus for Kucinich with the Dems. I had thought of maybe flipping to advance Ron Paul. We will have to see how things proceed.
I say impeach both of our executive criminals for TREASON. It might deter future administrations from seeking unlimited power. No Pardons. No Deals. They need to pay a price for their crimes.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 12:19:34 PM
Excellent news! And my Rep (Shae-Porter) even surprised me with her support. (Maybe I should send her more letters!) This makes me smile. Almost as much as Paul's take on Nov. 5.
by
AnotherRonPaulBot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 12:30:03 PM
One hopes it will lead to impeachment - but let's not expect
too much out of this. Wishful thinking is always tempting, of course.
You write that "For the Judiciary Committee to sit on it now and not schedule a hearing would be a gross travesty of parliamentary procedure and custom..."
Considering all the other daily & ongoing gross travesties that have been perpetrated & supported by both parties, I think one should probably bet on a gross travesty winning out here, once again.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 12:57:02 PM
Have you read Kucinich's articles of impeachment Rick?
On the merit of the arguments in Kucinich's HR 333 and on the available evidence do you or do you not think Cheney should be impeached? Why or why not?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 768 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 2:22:47 PM
Which of the several articles of impeachment against Cheney in your view is the strongest in terms of rising to the level of seriousness required for impeachment and removal and in terms of having the best and clearest evidence in support of it?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 768 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 6:01:58 PM
I think all 3 articles are plenty serious. As to which
of them might have the "best and clearest evidence in support of it," the first two would be easier to substantiate in a formal hearing than the third, because they refer to Iraq -- a crime that's already been committed. All the facts are fairly well-known; there are tons of highly damning Cheney statements on videotape.
The 3rd article, on the other hand, refers to Iran -- a crime that hasn't been committed yet. It would be harder to impeach the SOB for something he hasn't quite pulled off yet, than to nail him for the millions of people he's already killed, wounded, or made into refugees. (Before 1942, it would have been similarly difficult to nail Hitler in a court of law for planning a Holocaust which hadn't quite happened yet.)
Republicans that "wanted" a vote and that are on the
judicial committee may still want a vote.
If it is your view that actually having the debate (getting that "day in court" as Sessions put it) will change hearts and minds then perhaps the way forward is to approach those Republicans on the Judicial Committee to now follow up.
Perhaps now is the time to "thank" those Judicial Committee Republicans that voted against tabling and to urge them to urge Conyers to bring it on.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 768 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 1:54:49 PM
what are YOU willing to do to ensure that the media have something to report?
Are you willing to write a letter to one or more of those Republican Congressmen on the Judicial Committee thanking them and encouraging them to encourage Conyers to bring it on?
If you write a draft, you could post that draft letter here as an article and get comments on it in this forum which you could use to refine it and then you could send it to them and to the media as an open letter if you so choose.
If you write a draft letter to those Republicans on the Judicial Committee and post it here I promise to constructively criticise that draft.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 768 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 5:31:32 PM
I have already sent the letters, sorry for not posting before I sent them, but I heeded your initial advice and acted promptly before checking back. Nothing fancy - a sort of form letter to all (one sent to each and another to Conyers and the Dems) but at least I did make the effort! Let's hope others did as well...
Cheers,
Bid
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 565 comments)
on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 5:15:04 PM
One can onoly hope that hearings would include delving into those closed door energy meetings after which Enron almost crashed the economy of California and did bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric.
Supposedly those meetings included maps of Iraqi oil fields and a divvying up of those assets, long before the events of 9/11....hmmmm.
Oh and let us not forget Halliburton's guarranteed profit agreement for Iraqi reconstruction that has not exactly taken place.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 6:00:26 PM
I spent the entire day today trying to find out what this is and that will happen next.
After spending over 20 minutes with a rather sharp phone tallier for Conyers, his honest and surprisingly candid answers to my questions came to this, for the most part it's better that you contact your local politicians. The pressure builds from the bottom-up. Especially with newly elected DP reps. in mostly red districts.
It's basic self-preservation. We represent votes (as corrupted as they may be) and when enough of their constituents contact them the more comfortable they'll feel supporting the impeachment measure and speaking out. They want to keep their jobs as much as I would like to keep mine.
It's the old all politics is local.
So the rest of the day was spent calling and letter writing and such.
I don't know. Other powers have been brought down by little things. Rosa Parks, the dumb break-in at Watergate, the simple tactics of Gandhi, who knows? One can only hope.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 995 comments)
on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10:46:28 PM
This is the type of analysis that I love to read. And you're so on target with Wexler. He's a bright guy and excellent politician who shifted a couple of positions based on new input. How rare is that? He's the weathervane and a good one. If it's true that Pelosi has threatened Conyers position as chair should he convene hearings, she can have her retirement party tomorrow. She's got a well informed district which is probably fed up with her.
One qestion. You said: "The Democratic strategy for the 2008 election has been to do nothing overly confrontational,"
Doesn't it make sense that that's their cover story making the truth, which is that their tactic of wlmping out based on the proclaimed strategy is just a ruse to justify doing nothing because they're not really opposed to much of what Bush is doing?
by
Michael Collins (79 articles, 11 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 277 comments)
on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 12:10:27 AM
It is becoming clearer that the strongest opposition to impeachment of the principal traitors in this government are in the Democratic leadership and in particular the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She has bull headedly resisted the notion since before her election as Speaker, and she has had the corporate lap dog Steny Hoyer in her corner all along. She is clearly strong arming John Conyers with threats to his chairmanship if he dares to choose justice over Nancy by initiating action on Kucinich's bill.
I heard Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, in an interview this afternoon, trying to convince sensible people that it was better to allow treason to go uninvestigated and unpunished than to interrupt Congress in its efforts to impotently send the People's business under a veto stamp. It was encouraging to note that sensible people weren't buying it.
In any event, the question that springs to mind is, "Why is it any less impeachable for Democratic congresspeople to disregard their oath of office than it is for the Republican criminals to ignore theirs?"
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 809 comments)
on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 2:00:05 PM
It is becoming clearer that the strongest opposition to impeachment of the principal traitors in this government are in the Democratic leadership and in particular the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She has bull headedly resisted the notion since before her election as Speaker, and she has had the corporate lap dog Steny Hoyer in her corner all along. She is clearly strong arming John Conyers with threats to his chairmanship if he dares to choose justice over Nancy by initiating action on Kucinich's bill.
I heard Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, in an interview this afternoon, trying to convince sensible people that it was better to allow treason to go uninvestigated and unpunished than to interrupt Congress in its efforts to impotently send the People's business under a veto stamp. It was encouraging to note that sensible people weren't buying it.
In any event, the question that springs to mind is, "Why is it any less impeachable for Democratic congresspeople to disregard their oath of office than it is for the Republican criminals to ignore theirs?"
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 809 comments)
on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 2:00:46 PM
The oath to the Constitution is the one over riding principle that should be more important then party loyalty. Our unfortunate position is that both parties care less about the unity behind the Constitution and more about the way they can munipulate the flow of the tax dollars from citizens to their pockets in a number of forms of payoffs.
Our Country is under attack. Money has enterred our political arena from entities that should not warrant any voice in our business. Foreign entities should not be allowed to spend money in our political arena nor should Corporations. They are not people and should not be allowed to purchase political favors. "WE THE PEOPLE" should be secure in our civil rights and any illegal invasion of our privacy should be dealt with harshly
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Saturday, November 10, 2007 at 6:04:08 PM
