From Silicon Valley Impeachment Coalition
[Note Rep. Zoe Lofgren's phone number is (202) 225-3072, and fax (202) 225-3336]
Report on SVIC Meeting with Rep. Zoe Lofgren for Impeachment Hearings, 22 February 2008
(Note: the quotes here come from our memories and notes of the meeting, and are not meant to be literal quotations.)
On 22 February 2008 ten members of Silicon Valley Impeachment Coalition (SVIC) met with House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D, Ca-16) and her legal aide JoAnn Yamani to discuss impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney. Rep. Lofgren suggested this meeting as a follow-up to SVIC's meeting with her in January when we presented a strong case for impeachment hearings. Between our two meetings with Lofgren, she reissued a 1974 report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, and she submitted a letter to Rep. John Conyers asking him to introduce the report and hold hearings on it. SVIC viewed these developments as deliberate steps forward towards impeachment. In order to better understand her position on impeachment hearings, we decided to let her do more talking during this meeting.
We thanked her for making the report available to the public and to the Judiciary Committee, and asked her to follow-up with John Conyers to hold a discussion of this report with the full committee. When we asked her if there is anything we can do to move it forward, Lofgren replied "Conyers is not subject to pressure. He does what he thinks is right. If you want to write letters, we value what our constituents say. He listens to his lawyers, and I don't know what they think. They are very conservative." At this point in the meeting it's evident to us either Lofgren is holding her cards very close, or else we overestimated her support for impeachment hearings.
We then directly asked her what her reservation is about signing on to Wexler's call to hold hearings. Lofgren repeated again what she said at the last meeting and what has puzzled us in so many of her letters, that she's still not sure if she sees the evidence. As an example she referred to a classified report that she has authorized access to, saying that while she didn't like what she saw in the report, she saw no evidence that it was motivated by bad intentions, "I'm sure the original intention was to protect the country". Rather than countering with the principles set forth in the Constitution, we let her continue stating her reasons for issuing the 1974 report. "Except for John Conyers and myself, the rest of the committee has only had experience with the Clinton impeachment. So I want them to read this."
Her not wanting to repeat the circus of Clinton 's impeachment is laudable, but the bases for impeachment hearings against Cheney are hardly frivolous. And the way in which momentum is growing amongst the public and Congress, as led by Rep. Wexler, hearings do not appear to be in danger of deteriorating into a political attack. Is it believable that this is a more serious concern to Lofgren than is protecting the Constitution?
Lofgren sidestepped our concerns about this administration's Constitutional violations. When we mentioned the separation of power, she again turned to the 1974 report, saying it "contains a lot about balance of power." Rather than addressing the abuses, however, she seemed to merely disregard the White House's premise upon which those overreaching executive powers were based. Lofgren dismissively paraphrased the contents of the forty-two page white paper prepared by Attorney General Gonzales as "the President says 'I am the commander-in-chief and I don't have to follow the laws. I can do what I want.'" Lofgren then suggested the 2008 elections as a solution to restore the balance of power, "I believe this can be adjusted in the next administration". Throughout the meeting Rep. Lofgren repeatedly mentioned that the elections will solve the problems that we describe as Constitutional violations. We countered that you can't create a mandate for an issue that is not brought up in a campaign, and by not impeaching you are setting a precedent for abuse of power.
After the meeting, we had a lot of discussion about what Lofgren meant when she said impeachment is intended as a remedy against a rogue president, but that Bush does not fit that description. She had argued that his actions may have been done for legitimate reasons, and therefore often have had the approval of Congress. All the reasons she stated in the meeting for not supporting impeachment hearings appear to be merely excuses. Is Zoe Lofgren simply maintaining a neutral stance, knowing she'll play a key role if public pressure reaches the tipping point in support of impeachment hearings? Does Lofgren see the writing on the wall that impeachment hearings--brought on by other members of the Judiciary Committee--are inevitable with or without her support, if public pressure continues to grow? We do not know how close Lofgren is to supporting Wexler's call for hearings. Our conclusion is that impeachment hearings will become more likely as public support grows, and we intend to keep the pressure on Zoe Lofgren.
Many thanks from SVIC to all of those who stood in the rain with "HONK TO IMPEACH" and "CALL LOFGREN" signs outside the office during the meeting. We and Zoe could hear the honks of support from inside.
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
| 4 comments |
|
|
Lofgren's rise and fall is in the hands of Nancy Pelosi. Nuff said. by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 51 quicklinks, 215 diaries, 382 comments)
on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 4:40:34 PM
|
|
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law. |
To "the best of my ability" may be Bush's ultimate defence. As per Article II Section I last paragraph Bush solemnly swore to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Bush is not Nixon or Bill Clinton. Perceived low ability might conceivably be his very best defence. It could be argued perhaps that his hundreds of signing statements show a President struggling in the job and that it is not entirely his fault that he is President - the voters and the system also put him there. With respect to Wexler's articles against Cheney I think taking Lofgren on what she has said is the best approach. If she has said she is not sure the case is there then take a look at the case that is laid out. Imagine that it wasn't against Cheney but against Vice President X of unknown political party. Ask would a reasonable and impartial man or woman think that this case against Cheney is made to the requisite standard to warrant proceeding with hearings. If the answer is no then the case itself isn't strong enough. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:54:22 PM
|
|
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law. |
This is the bit that really sticks in my craw Oops silly us, we elected a doofus that under pressure tortured a few foreigners and invaded one of those countries full of brown people when technically we'd promised in treaties that we wouldn't do that. Not to worry, we are still the United States, we still have this massive military so we can just pardon President doofus and the world can pull our finger. Its this sort of thinking that that give rise to the sentiment may God Fuk America. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 8:00:16 PM
|
|
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law. |
Here is an example of where the Cheney articles seem weak Heres the text of Kucinich's HR333 provided on Wexlers site Excerpt follows: A) 'For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference. (B) 'But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney. (C) 'When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney. (D) 'But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia. In fairness, I don't think these above statements of Cheneys unambiguously do amount to him having openly threatened aggression against Iran. He talks of keeping all options on the table and as a permanent UN Security Council member the US has a lot of wiggle room for legitimately considering all options. This part of the case against Cheney is in my opinion quite weak. I don't want to defend Cheney, but Zoe Lofgren's stated concerns could arise from this sort of less than overwhelming argument. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:11:54 PM
|
| 4 comments |
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
