OpEdNews Op Eds

Rep. Zoe Lofgren Not Sure Bush and Cheney Have Done Anything Wrong

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (113 fans)

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://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Nancy Pelosi.Nuff said. ... by Jim Freeman on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:40:34 PM
After the meeting, we had a lot of discussion abou... by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:54:22 PM
Lofgren dismissively paraphrased the contents of t... by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:00:16 PM
Heres the text of Kucinich's HR333 provided on... by Brett Paatsch on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:11:54 PM