It's time for you to take impeachment to your local Democratic groups, especially if your district's representative is a Democrat or moderate or libertarian leaning Republican. Every week, more members of congress are signing on to Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney, and Cheney is smelling rottener and rottener every day.
Yesterday, the local township dems in Bucks county PA, where I live, voted unanimously to support impeachment-- Cheney, then Bush. I brought it up at a meeting. I didn't expect a unanimous vote. It was easy.
Last month, the Princeton Dems, the largest township in Rush Holt's district voted to support impeachment after Mark Crispin Miller, Dafe Lindorff and I gave talks on impeachment. The vote among Princeton Dems was more than 70% in favor.
I did my first impeachment talk, at the National Constitution center, at an Event organized by Progressive Democrats of America, AfterDowningSTreet and Democrats.com, with Dave Lindorff, Cindy Sheehan, Viet Nam Veteran Bill Perry, Elizabeth Holtzman (who was involved in the congressional preliminary hearings that would have led to impeachment of Nixon,) David Swanson and others, back in October.
On July fifth, there's an Impeachment meeting in Philly and a few days later, I'll be speaking on impeachment to the south jersey PDA group in Pennsauken.
It's time we, in every township, every voting district, every county send a message to our local elected dems and tell them to take a vote that gives our congressional representatives a clear indication that the democrats in their district want impeachment...
Whereever you live, you need to organize to put on a presentation to the Executive committee of the democratic party for your congressional district when it meets the next month or two. Kucinich has already entered legislation to impeach Cheney and it has eight sponsors, with more signing on each week. It will be easier for our congressman to sign on to a Cheney impeachment, for starters.
Across the nation, these meetings and presentations are going on. There are plenty of speakers who will help persuade members. The reasons NOT to impeach are easily overcome.
At the Take Back America conference last week, Nancy Pelosi's surrogates in the house and senate told us that we need to win in 2008, that impeachment would be criticized as wasting time. But over and over again those same members of congress said that the way to get out of Iraq, and to get anything done is by "we the people." The dem presidential candidates said it. The new freshman members of the house and senate said it. It's almost like they were pleading with us.
"Put the pressure on and we will respond."
Our polling in PA last year, before many of the latest corruption disclosures and hearings had unfolded, already showed that 80% of Democrats want impeachment. You can make it happen. Insist that there be discussions of impeachment by your local elected democratic ward leaders and officials. Insist on a public vote on the issue. You deserve to know how your representatives represent you. These votes are landsliding their way across America. We need to collect the results so the members of congress can see that this is what their constituents want.
pre-emptive responses to objections: 1-there's not enough time. If a supreme court justice dies or retires, there's time for Bush to put another nail in the coffin of Democracy by making a third or fourth appointment.
2-Impeachment prosecution will fail in the senate. Bush and Cheney have committed crimes that must be prosecuted. Just the start of the process may force some compliance with subpoenas. Each Republican vote against disclosure of hidden secrets can be used in the '08 elections-- real, substantive stuff, not the tripe the RNC has on their website. Seventy percent of Americans are unhappy with Bush, more are unhappy with Cheney. The house will impeach Cheney based on serious, grave criminal charges and because of Cheney's continued defiance to the constitution. He is making the Republican party look despicable. The Republicans may decide he is better off gone. It is highly unlikely they will allow him to fight this. Instead, they will tale "THE WALK" one of many such walks, already done, but this one will be to tell Cheney that he must resign. He will do so with a note from his doctor. That should not stop the house from taking investigations as far as possible, especially after he resigns and can no longer claim the same level of immunity.
Once Cheney resigns, the senate can hold up appointment of a vice president indefinitely.
Many of the hearings that will work against Cheney will also be working against Bush. As investigations, discovery, subpoenas, people claiming the fifth, then testifying under protection proceed, there will be more and higher level corrupt official and appointees identified. We're seeing the tip of th is in the Gonzales justice department investigations. There are many more to come.
Each new disclosure of right wing supported Bush Admin corruption, of Right wing attacks upon the constitution makes the Republicans who block further investigations who support Gonzales and the other rotten Bush appointees look worse and worse. The loyalty to party over constitution and nation make the Republican party look worse, worser and worst, as Keith Olbermann might say.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
United Teachers of Los Angeles voted to impeach both!!!
Dear Rob,
As with your experience, people are just waiting to be asked for their opinion, and it's overwhelmingly IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT!!!
Last month at UTLA's Human Rights Committee, I introduced our resolution to impeach (both, why stop at one) and it passed unanimously! Then it went to the full House of Reps (the legislative body for the union), and it passed OVERWHELMINGLY with NO ONE speaking in opposition.
This was done to help show our spineless local and state legislators that there is UNION SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT. This would seem like a no-brainer, but they seriously don't get it.
Last assembly session, Assemblyman Paul Koretz introduced his impeachment resolution (for both) just after the first was done, I think, in Illinois. He did so without telling leadership first, because they didn't approve of it, and it was sent off to a quick death in the Speaker-controlled Rules Committee. When the session ended in 06, Paul was termed out and the bill expired.
This year PDLA, as well as a number other local progressive groups, has tried to get SOMEONE in the California State Legislature to re-author to no avail. ALL of those asked point to Speaker Fabian Nunez as the one who does NOT WANT TO IMPEACH.
It seems to me that any elected official who is NOT willing to go on the record FOR IMPEACHMENT of such a corrupt leaders is implicitly backing Bush and needs to be held accountable for this in the next election.###
by
Linda Sutton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 1:45:25 PM
Here's another suggestion. (Not aimed at you Linda ;-)
Whenever a representative that claims to be YOUR representative (at any level) will not support impeachment try and get them to go on record with their reasons why not. They owe you their REASONS as your representative and you should insist on having them. Their reasons tell you something about their thinking at a particular date in time. They tell you the objections that have yet to be overcome. With those objections others can take a run at the same representatives knowing precisely what their objections are.
In this way, working bottom up, at every stage, the intelligence gathered by one citizen activist or group can be used to empower other activists. Results and support from others should encourage individual activists and make the sometimes sense of heavy lifting lighter.
As the numbers on Kucinich's resolution go up we can watch the dominos going down. And so too can the judiciary watch them. And the judiciary committee. Those folks can't dismiss their article 6 duty to support the constitution, even if some of them want to, if you don't let them.
The judiciary (and committee) will have a part in this before its over because Bush and Cheney are going to fight to stiffle information like their legacies if not their lives depend on it.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 8:10:01 AM
I will write an article soon about how we feel we helped encourage Rep. Keith Ellison to cosign H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney as soon as I have time, but for now, just check out the results:
Seems like a waste of time and money. I think everyone believes that impeachment really means something. They don’t go to jail when impeached even if the Senate convicts. It is just a statement that they have committed high crimes and everyone already knows this. So, what will change with impeachment? Impeachment is like an indictment but no where near as serious. The congress declares that the government official has committed a high crime. The Senate then decides if they should kick him out of public service forever. That is it. Nothing else.
I don’t think Bush will ever take another office and everyone already knows he’s an idiot.
I don’t think Cheney will ever hold another office and everyone knows he is a criminal.
So, what will impeachment do other than a big waste of time.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 537 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 4:09:24 PM
may lead to conviction and removal - and that's worth a great deal, but even if they are not convicted the most important thing will have happened: the truth will come out in the most public of arenas. That's what happened with Nixon and the Senate hearings -- every day, and repeated at night, on PBS. That's when I realized what slime the Republicans were -- Hatch, Grassley, the rest of them -- as they defended the indefensible with their lies and absurdities. Impeachment should be televised of course, but even if they manage to keep it off the TV it will still be widely covered in the press.
That's the most important reason to impeach -- to open up the can of worms which has largely been hidden.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 4:28:16 PM
To say that impeachment is a waste of time and money is to say that law enforcement is a similar waste.
The only reason to resist the temptation to impeach Cheney, and then Bush, is that their continued malfeasance will strengthen progressive resistance and mobilization. They are the best recruiters for progressivism ever to appear on the political scene.
But I say that the rule of law, precedence in good governance, and simple decency demand that impeachment be pursued. The votes just aren’t there to convict in the Senate, but if we don’t make examples of these crooks, future Cheney’s will be emboldened.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 4:29:19 PM
I agree they should be criminally charged under the next administration. After they are out of office. Impeachment is not a criminal charge. It merely kicks someone out of office and prevents them from holding an office in the future.
This will never happen because the next Crookes that get into office will fear reprisal. There is no such thing as an honest politician. Your government is full of criminals just trying to control the law so that it doesn't get them.
Everyone knows what these ass holes have done and some people don't care, others approve. It is like asking if drugs should be legal to someone sitting there smoking a joint. Then turning and asking the cop that makes his living beating up dope smokers if pot should be legal. You should already know the answer.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 537 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 3:17:10 AM
Not an option if Bush retains Presidential pardon power
"except in cases of impeachment".
Waiting out the Bush Presidency and prosecuting him or anyone else that he wants to pardon are mutually incompatible ..... unless you think Bush "the decider" won't use his Presidential power to pardon?
Please see Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. click here
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".
Brett Paatsch
Melbourne, Australia
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 10:35:54 PM
Actually I think the objective case on publicly available documents is even stronger against Bush than Cheney but going after Cheney at this stage is an effective campaigning tactic in my opinion. It hits the superficial objection that impeaching Bush leaves Cheney.
As momentum builds and the conversation is joined by more and more folk that discover or perhaps rediscover their threatened birthrights in the constitution it should be a relatively trivial matter to actually rewrite the articles of impeachment themselves and make them for both Bush and Cheney.
At this stage building the movement and getting the conversation going is the crucial thing. The folk in the judiciary and the senators and representatives that want to do the right thing and uphold their article 6 duty "to support the constitution", but don't want to sacrifice their whole careers by charging out too early need to see some real groundswell from the citizenry. Good people doing right should be able to it with realistic hope of getting support if America is actually worth a damn.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 2:02:22 AM
I learned during the 04 campaign when I did rapid response writing that the best way to reach local voters was through their local newspapers. Among pages of high school sports stats and announcements of AA meetings, there are AP short pieces and letters to the editors. We read the police blotter and the obituaries and always Letters to the Editor. A sense of the change in editorial tone comes through when an AP story against the administration makes it on the front pages. All letters submitted are printed and some make it to the online webpage. The letter I wrote on May 26 appeared online and I knew I was getting traction. Jimmie Duncan, son of a man who held the job for the 2nd Congressional district previously, did not vote for the invasion nor the surge. The speech he gave when Pelosi allowed all to speak about the surge appropriation is classicly his position. I wrote what I did because Forrest Erickson was a new voice for our side, and I wanted to support his idea and also to bring him up to snuff on a few details. The headline for my letter was something like Trading Cheney for Bush. The folks here at our Senior towers commented to me, as did several of my friends in the community.
It is more difficult to email Congressmen Duncan since he became a minority member. When I realized I would have to go through the pool arrangement to write him now, I chose to handle a question through his local office. The secretary answered me about the question and said she would forward the letter. (I had written a paragraph of thanks for how he has handled the Iraq surge matter.) Duncan and his father have never had serious Democratic contention in the thirty years I've lived in East Tennessee. I note that he now makes appearances on TV for charitable causes. Earmarks have made him strong. And he has a connection to the Study Group of Republicans who believe in old-fashioned Republican causes.
I tell you this because it is my belief that there will be a major shift in political outlook among us living in the slow lane. Our district may not go Democratic in 08, but the state of Tennessee very well could. The flash issues of NASCAR, "persons of faith" and NRA are not mentioned so often any more.
Here's my letter:
Editor, The Daily Times P.O. Box 9740 Maryville, TN 37802-9740
Dear Editor:
There has been so much discussion about impeaching the President and Vice-President for over three years that one wonders why it still seems like a new topic. The difference this spring is that members of Congress now pronounce the word. The first to make it a non-topic was House Speaker Pelosi, who declared it was off the table. A change of interest happens even here in The Daily Times, where an letter by Forrest Erickson appeared on May 24. One of the disadvantages of impeaching the President and making it stick is that we would inherit Dick Cheney as his replacement. And that is not palatable to many Democrats. In fact, they consider Cheney as guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as George W. Bush. Representative Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, introduced three articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney in the House on April 24. Just recently Patrick Fitzgerald, who investigated Scooter Libby’s perjury case, has issued his recommendations to the court. It seems he will get three years or less for obfuscating in the Plame matter. Scooter did what he did as he worked for Cheney. Just to be blunt, it seems people are getting riled over Cheney’s making war talk, including about Iran. And what he says does not always agree with his boss, the President. Nitpickers are likely to assert that Bush needs someone to do his thinking. Regardless of what a person thinks about Bush’s IQ, that is no reason to overrun him in the highest office of the land. Most striking for us in US House District 2 is that we have a Representative, John J. Duncan, Jr., who did not vote for the invasion of Iraq. And he made a strong speech on the floor of the House against this year’s escalation. Even the internet group at the forefront of impeachment talk (downingstreetmemo.org) mentions his votes against the Iraq war. It takes fortitude to buck the group think of the Republicans with their “war on terror” chant.
Sincerely, Margaret Bassett
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1354 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 813 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 4:35:08 PM
THIS is what a grassroots movement is about. If the powers to be aren't budging they need a nudge (or shove). By the way, since this article went to press there are now 10 co-sponsors to Kucinich's H. Res. 333. The co-chairs, Woolsey and Lee, of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have both co-sponsored and it follows that we should also be zeroing in on the other CPC members in addition to passing local resolutions. You can find the list here: CPC
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (17 articles, 16 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 323 comments)
on Friday, June 29, 2007 at 6:40:31 PM
Is it your plan to wait for the sixteen Republicans
to lead us to Bush's Impeachment, then ask your Representative to file a motion?
Do we Impeach Cheney first, then deal with Bush on the selection of another “Ford” (to pretend pardons can proceed indictments)? Compromise on a “temporary placeholder, with minimal power”?
I have been calling on my Representative to file a motion to Impeach both Bush and Cheney (to be treated as high privilege under House Rule #604), as a Moral Imperative, not as a political strategy.
Any Democrat failing to make such a motion should be told they will face opposition in the primary.
There could be a separate motion for each of the Bush/Cheney crimes, along with a demand to debate each one. (To be avoided, is a request to investigate under House Rule #605).
Only a strong Republican could lead the sixteen Senators needed to replace Bush/Cheney, but it would take a strong leader to implement The Iraq Study Group Report and get us out of the Bush/Cheney disaster.
It is only when we project the ghost of the rotting head of the unitary executive upon the fast track auction table, that Pelosi will understand that she can't collect enough money to replace the voters her failure to act is driving from the party.
I appreciate your list of successful local actions but must request clarification of your plan.
by
Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 111 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 12:41:19 AM
Guys, never mind whether there is sufficient time or whether these criminals go to prison - it is crucially important for the future standing and/or respect a) the world gives to our nation, and b) we give to the moral structure of our society, that people who behave like this ARE to be impeached - Nixon was a choirboy compared to these two - otherwise how can we say with a straight face 'we are a nation with democratic and moral values that respect the rule of just laws'
by
JrHep (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 10:26:51 AM
