Impeachment.... By any other name
Submitted by ms in la on July 23, 2008 - 1:51pm.
Impeachment | Call to Action | Civil Liberties | Current Events | Democratic politics
Dennis Kucinich is a dog with a bone. And not even the tightly pulled leash of Nancy Pelosi and other anti-Impeachment "Dems" will keep his teeth off of this issue. Kucinich is ... doing his job. Defending our Constitution. And sadly, that is an extraordinary thing in this 110th Congress.
We really should help him.
Kucinich, Holzman, Wexler and the others on the front lines need our support - yet again- as they enter this next phase of the struggle to keep us a nation that aligns with our founding documents. That Constitutional thing again...
HEARING THIS FRIDAY JULY 25!
Three titles for the hearing were already considered, with the third title being agreed upon as:
"Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations"
This third title handily avoids any reference to Bush or Cheney or impeachment or the Iraq war-- which the others included.
Impeachment efforts have been opposed by Nancy Pelosi who recently explained that she's against it because she's "bipartisan", and by Barack Obama, who says it should be "reserved for exceptional circumstances", and that he worried that an impeachment probe "could be perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt", and by John Conyers who claims that if he upheld the Constitution Fox News would call him names, not to mention Harold Ford who alleges that "The Constitution doesn't poll well," and Cass Sunstein who argues against ever holding Bush or Cheney to account for anything...
When Speaker Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).
Thanks to massive pressure from Democrats.com and pro-impeachment allies, Speaker Pelosi finally allowed ("Mother May I?") Chairman Conyers to hold a hearing this Friday.
Kucinich will get a few minutes to argue for impeachment along with Rep. Robert Wexler, former Rep. Liz Holtzman, and former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34943
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32750
------
-------
==================================================================
Only a few (6) of the Judiciary Democrats understand that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of impeachment as the only way to stop a President from defying the Constitution and becoming a dictator:
Robert Wexler (FL19), Tammy Baldwin (WI02), Steve Cohen (TN09), Keith Ellison (MN05), Luis Gutierrez (IL04), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX18), Hank Johnson (GA04), and Maxine Waters (CA35).
If the anti-impeachment Democrats get their way, Friday's hearing will be the only "impeachment" hearing for this entire Congress -- this would be a tragic consequence-- we have to try to prevent our last threshold from being trampled out of existence.
In a new development, Ralph Nader was scheduled to appear on the panel to speak out in favor of Impeachment, but at the last minute, the "Dems" have disinvited him and cut him from the agenda.
DISGUSTING ANTI DEMOCRATIC UPDATE, JUST IN:
They are telling witnesses there is a rule forbidding them from saying the president has committed impeachable offenses.
Please do something.
=======================================================
Below, Dennis Kuchinich thanks us for our voices and efforts that enabled him to hold this hearing despite Pelosi and the anti-Impeachment Dems' efforts to prevent it from ever happening. I was going to just snip out just the important parts... but then I realized, it's all so important, there was nothing to edit. So forgive the length and please take the actions at the bottom of this comment!
---------------------------------------------
I want to thank you for the support which you have given to my efforts to hold this administration accountable for taking us into a war based on lies and for the destruction of the rule of law and the destruction of cherished constitutional principles.
Because of your support, this Friday in Washington, DC, I will make a presentation before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives at which time I will make the case that this president has violated his oath of office, violated United States law and international law, has separated our nation from our constitution, and has taken us on a course that has been so profoundly anti-democratic that it has threatened the core of our nation.
Because of your support, I have been able to advance this series of matters right to the table of the Judiciary Committee.
Because of your support, I have been able to create an opening so we’re finally getting a chance in Washington to discuss the abuses of power, to discuss a war based on lies, to discuss the whole architecture of constitutional principles that have been taken down.
Every serious matter that faces the people of this country today can be linked to an administration which is not accountable.
For example, the price of gasoline. You know that Vice President Cheney with the permission and blessing of President Bush held secret meetings with leaders of the oil industry where they laid out maps of Iraq far in advance of the attack on Iraq.
You know and I know the war was about oil, and if we can force the vice president of the United States to have to testify, we can get the information that is necessary to be able to prove that not only has US law been violated, but that the public trust has been under a continuous assault by an alliance between the White House and the oil companies.
You look at the sub-prime lending fiasco with millions of Americans having the dream of home ownership threatened, and you look at an administration that took the cops off the beat at the Securities and Exchange Commission that enabled the Fed to look the other way when they should have been disciplining the banks. The American people had a right to expect the government would protect their interests.
When you look at the shakeout in the stock market and all these small investors who are losing their life savings, again the Bush administration and their alliance with interest groups, violating an oath of office, enabling these interest groups to steal from the American people, over and over and over again.
For the first time we are going to have a chance to raise these issues in the Judiciary Committee in the context of a hearing at which I am going to present the Articles of Impeachment so that the Committee cannot say, well, they just didn’t know. We are going to force this issue because of you.
We are in danger of losing our country to war based on lies, to destruction of our civil liberties, but it is your commitment and your willingness to stand up and speak out that has enabled me to take a stand and to say not only are we going to save what is right and save what is dear to us, but we are going to hold this administration accountable so that it never happens again.
This is truly our moment. Friday is the beginning. Thank you for supporting this effort with signing petitions, with your emails and your letters and your phone calls.
I pledge to you that I will continue my efforts to defend a way of life that the American people have a right to expect – to expect to have a government they can call their own – to expect to have a government that will tell them the truth – to expect to have a government that is worthy of the tradition of democracy
.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34970
------------------------------------------------------
ACTIONS TO TAKE
Tell your Representatives to support impeachment by cosponsoring H. Res. 1345 at either link:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142
http://afterdowningstreet.org/bushaction
If you can't be there on Friday, please blog and/or freeway blog the word IMPEACH everywhere you can that day:
If you haven't yet, sign the petition at Congressman Kucinich's website
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition
And one more critical step -in a virtual press black out in this poor country- ask the media to (gasp!) COVER IT! They make it really easy with all email and phone contact info at this link:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/1084
If none of the above moves you, consider this:
On July 15th, the Virginia Federal Court of Appeals ruled in a 5-4 decision that President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detention of civilians in the United States.
In terms of the principles involved, the true importance of this case is that the Appeals Court has opened the door wide for the US administration to have the civilian authorities arrest people and then transfer them to the US military authorities. Once that is done, they can be held indefinitely.
And read up on Senate Bill S. 1959 again.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16127#comment-316802
....
OR read this from Slate this week on "Pre-emptive Pardons" in the works for the administration that favors pre-emption:
With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs
And there is precedent in an 1866 Supreme Court ruling for pardoning someone before they have been charged with a crime.
http://www.slate.com/id/2195689/?GT1=38001
PLEASE DO SOMETHING.
Pelosi and others against open hearings on the crimes an misdemeanors of the GWB administration is partly because they were complicit. Many of them were briefed on a regular basis by the WH and they did NOTHING. If it all comes out many Dems will be (and should be ) held accountable too.
The other reason is the Political class in this country feel that different rules apply to politicians. Schumer said that Bush was punished at the ballot box. Hello!!! WTF has that to do with breaking the law????
grrrrrrrrinding teeth
I wish Dennis well but with that kind of attitude in Washington, they will fight him at every turn
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
"punished at the ballot box"
Ha!
As if.
Yeah, in a sense he was punished at the ballot box. Both in 2000 and 2004. But guess what? The ballot box is not the final word anymore in American elections.
It gets trumped by the SCOTUS and the Diebold Tabulators every time.
And so, just like the idea of the Preemptive Pardons above .... bush gets his "penalties" revoked and is allowed to enjoy the false fruits of another's victories.
All of the offenders are going to have to be very careful when they leave the country. Of course, I expect Cheney to move to Dubai, where they don't have extradition. He can go back to being CEO of Halliburton, although, it looks to me like he's been the de facto CEO of Halliburton throughout his undisclosed location years.
Cheney recently donated something like $5 million to the University of Wyoming Foundation ("Charity donation") and then right after that the University signed a whopping $54 million dollar contract to construct a massive new Business school complex on campus.
I was curious who garnered the hefty contract for the construction..... But I'm sure it's sealed, eyes only, double top secret, classified, national security information.... :)
of the actions you post as I can right now, and will add one more from an email from Veterans For Peace. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.
---------------------
Impeachment Phone Action Update
Call between now and July 25th. Some of us will be in Washington, DC but the real work will be your calls.
Call the House of Representatives Switchboard
1-202-224-3121
LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR ANY CONGRESSMAN - IMPEACH.
Learn who your Representative is: Congressman by ZIP Code
Learn who is on the Judiciary Committee
----------------------------
SCRIPT OF WHAT TO SAY WHEN YOU CALL JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT
1) See if your own Representative is the Judiciary Committee.
2) If not, is anybody on it from your state so you can at least use a "neighborly" approach?
3) Call some Democrats, but don't forget to call at least a couple Republicans. But call as may as you can.
Hi, my name is Patty Smith and I'm a member of Veterans For Peace. We are calling/visiting members of the House Judiciary Committee to urge you to look into and support the Articles of Impeachment now before the Committee, and to submit your own Articles if you find it necessary.
This administration must be held accountable for lying to Congress and the public in order to start an illegal war, for its treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo, for spying on Americans. We can't simply let this administration serve out its time and retire. What kind of criminal behavior will that encourage from future administrations and presidents who want to be kings?
VFP is for impeachment because democracy must be protected from "unitary executives" who will take whatever power they can grab, and 4124 American soldiers and over a million Iraqis have been killed in this illegal war; and because it is the law.
----------------
TALKING POINTS FOR IMPEACHMENT
The record is clear! This President, Vice President and other officials of the administration have committed many impeachable offenses; see among other sources, Representative Kucinich's (D-OH) 35 articles of impeachment for the President (HR 1258) and for the Vice President (HR333) and former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's lists of 20 articles of impeachment.
- In the armed forces we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We still take that oath seriously and we call on you to execute your duties as Congressmen to impeach.
- This lawless administration has taken us into an illegal war that is costing us 720 million dollars a day. Congress can stop that financial blood letting by impeaching.
- This administration has taken on unheard of presidential powers. The unprecedented encroachment by the presidency on the powers of congress will become a precedent and continue with future presidents of both parties. Congress must stop this aggregation of power by impeaching.
- It is the law. Congress is charged with the obligation of impeaching in the case of "high crimes or misdemeanors." The crimes are obvious; to willfully ignore them is lawlessness and in itself criminal.
-----------------
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS IN WASHINGTON DC
Thursday
8 AM - visuals outSide the House Office Buildings, especially between Longworth and Cannon
9 AM - meet in Rayburn cafeteria - get lobbying assignments and pick up packets with talking points.
7:15 PM - several peace groups are gathering to strategize together, largely on stopping an attack on Iran (Falls Church)
Friday
10 AM - Judiciary Committee
Noon (or after hearing) - meet in Rayburn cafeteria for more lobbying
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
This resonates:
In the armed forces we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We still take that oath seriously and we call on you to execute your duties as Congressmen to impeach.
I keep feeling like a large portion of the solution to our Constitutional crisis will lie in the hands of the military.
Retired and active.
You see the resolve, endurance and the strength in them that simply isn't found in Congress critters these days. Their patriotism and their willingness to fight for their beliefs... without backing down. That's the kind of grit it will take if we're ever going to get the government back.
I keep feeling like a large portion of the solution to our Constitutional crisis will lie in the hands of the military.
-- Ms in LA
I could not disagree more strongly.
Rhetorically, if I were a less patient man, I might be inclined to start warning you about the consequences of this line of thought. Does the word 'coup' mean anything to you?
However, like myself, you have been highly incenced by the issues at hand, and so I will only assert that you don't know what your talking about.
I'm asking you please, Ms In La, desist from that course of argument. Your Impeachment post is lovely, but this invokation of military power is unacceptable.
Bite your lip or whatever you have to do.
of the words "military" and "power" was your design. And certainly no one said anything about a coup!
I am speaking about Military - active and retired- boldly speaking out in defense of the constitution.
Jon Soltz
Wes Clark
Brandon Freidman
Maj Gen Paul Eaton
Jim Webb
Paul Reickhoff
all the VoteVets and all the Veterans For Peace.
and on and on.
Nope. I won't refrain from that concept.
They understand the high value importance of protecting and defending the constitution and our so called congressional representatives have all but forgotten their oath and their pledge to do likewise. They have the courage to speak out against torture, against illegal and immoral wars, against all lawbreaking committed by the executive branch.
There is a sense of honor that permeates the military branches that seems to have bypassed the 110th US Congress and certainly this administration who have for the most part not served.
You can wait for your senators to save the Constitution.
I hope you're taking lots of longevity supplements.
You'll surrender neocon military privilege when?
Tomarrow?
After dinner?
'Before it's too late?'
Did you watch Tara Wall on Verdict?
The thought of the President being morally obligated to surrender civilian control of the military didn't seem to phase her one bit!
If your soldier's desire is so overpowering as to push aside all civilian rivals than I suggest you start thinking about how much it's going to cost you to move someplace where they believe in those kind of rights.
Until then, I guess you'll just have to suffer through bein forced, morally, to stay someplace where people believe in what you hate.
Payback's a bitch, isn't it.
you kind of lost me on that post, DonL.
Not sure I catch the drift, but in any case- I have to run out of here now.
And just for the record... I'm not "suffering". :)
except that any active military that "speaks out" will get his/her ass in a sling very quickly, including courts martial, demotion, early retirement, (see Wes Clark) and losing a goodly portion of their rightful retirement benefits. It's basically those who have "been there, done that," that have the experiences, the courage, and the wisdom to pillory those in the administration, past and present, who deserve pillorying and to speak out in support of our constitution. Isn't that what being a responsible citizen is all about?
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
It would seem any 'active' speaking out too loudly practically guarantees they will soon no longer be "active"...
But you hear the rumblings of discontent from those in the service - who have been on the front lines and have served, or are in between tours. I talk to them every chance I get. But yeah, they can't really step up in a public platform until they're out.
I still have a feeling that their voices will act as a galvanizing.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
With only six months left in the Bush administration, there's no time to complete any impeachment proceeding. Trying will tie Congress in knots to boot.
No, impeachment isn't the answer. The answer is for the new Democratic Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings after January 20.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
with their record, probably would be a good idea. And the dem hasn't been elected yet; if it's Senator Strangelove, then forget it; probably with o too, since he has advisors that prattle about NOT going after the "former" administration. I also suspect Hillary would try to find better things to do, as congresscritters seem to be reluctant to go after their own; if it comes, it will have to come because of civil or international suits.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Everything nowadays is muddled - nothing is clear-cut.
It is confusing to support impeachment and support Obama at the same time.
Obama is consistent, he will continue on with the colonialism in the ME.
He is willing to use military force with or without consent.
His language assures the corporations he will continue with the status-quo, not to worry.
Those in leadership positions who support Obama would find it a challenge to support impeachment.
Gen. Taguba asks the question - will those who ordered the use of torture be held accountable, this he asks after stating there is no doubt the current administration has committed war crimes.
Yes, I am aware of Gen. Clark's support. However, Gen. Clark has said, repeatedly, he would bring ME leaders together to make an agreement, to govern their own lands, to help make them feel a sense of pride in their countries and amongst their peers. This language has been absent from our current leaders. Gen. Clark's words, strategies, relationships and insights are vastly different from words of Obama.
Oh yes, I want to believe, I weep to believe, I keep hoping Obama will bring it.
I'm still hoping.
After all we have been through in the Bush years - all we really have left is hope.
" Our democracy and system of justice have to be restored. The people need to have confidence that this kind of outrageous abuse of power is at least less likely to happen in the future.
If Congress lets it go unchecked and unpunished, then it could well become part of America’s political culture, and would be more likely to happen again in the future. "
Don Siegelman
He is referring to his own case, but more broadly, to the whole rotten mess begotten by the B*** crowd. I say, let Conyers committee go forward, election or not. An investigation will not be finished, nor hardly even started, before the election, with the Administration refusing to cooperate, but they can start laying out the case, hearing from whomever will talk. I have no confidence that either candidate, McCain or Obama will pursue it, but if Congress has enough of a majority, they can pursue it on their own. This can go on for years, with perhaps criminal trials for some. It doesn't have to dominate the whole attention of the new Administration - can't people do more than one thing at a time?
and see this hearing?... If so, could you please blog something about it here on this blog? Brief recap, highlights, something?
I'm working all day and will not be near anything that picks up a signal! Really really want to know how it goes...
Maybe they'll re-air but given the controversial nature of the hearing and all the stops they've pulled out thus far, you can't count on it.
Free press and all....
PRESS INFO
KPFA & Pacifica Radio will air Friday's hearing from 9:00AM - 1:00PM EDT streamed live at pacifica.org and kpfa.org and on the air at KPFA (Berkeley), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFT (Houston), and others TBD.
C-Span will air video live, and C-Span radio will air audio.
Here's the official witness list:
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations
Panel One
The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina
Panel Two
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Where:
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
When:
10:00 a.m., Friday, July 25, 2008
===========================================
LATEST NEWS, DA RULZ & UPDATES!
UPDATE: Vince Bugliosi has been added to the witness list. Of course he'll focus on local prosecution, which gets Congress off the hook. And he has, on occasion, nonsensically badmouthed impeachment as "not good enough." At other times he's explained that he, of course, wants impeachment, that it benefits prosecution, that it could help forestall a pardon that would prevent prosecution, etc. Needless to say, there's not a single advocate for impeachment anywhere who doesn't want prosecution too.
UPDATE: They're telling witnesses that they are forbidden to even mention Bush or Cheney by name.
UPDATE: Here's what Conyers' staffers are telling various witnesses:
Under a rule of Congress, you cannot accuse the president or vice president of any crime, or any impeachable offense, or dishonorable conduct, or lying.
You can say things like "top administration officials." You can quote Bush and Cheney. You can presumably quote from news sources and the Congressional Record (which would include Kucinich's articles of impeachment). You can assert facts in a pattern that allows people to draw their own conclusion.
If anyone violates the rules, according to the staff of the supposed chairman of the committee, the Republicans could shut the hearing down. But they couldn't shut it down if it was an IMPEACHMENT HEARING. Nor would "executive privilege" apply in an IMPEACHMENT HEARING. Nor could any media outlet ignore an IMPEACHMENT HEARING. (Hence, the name change)
UPDATE: This may possibly be the rule Conyers has in mind. Someone should check Deschler's Precedents and Cannon's Precedents and Hinds' Precedents for how this rule is used. The key to working around it is supposedly to not name individuals, for example to say "top administration officials" rather than "Bush".
From pp 17-18 of The House Rules:
"Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness- (A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person."
But, following this rule, you'd have to go into closed session to play a video of Bush confessing to violating FISA or a video of Bush being warned about Katrina or a video of Bush suggesting it didn't much matter if his WMD lies were true. That is, statements that are in the public record would have to be kept "secret." That pretty well describes the culture of Washington, D.C.
Clearly we need to be prepared for this hearing to be shut down quickly, much to Conyers' great "regret." And we need to demand a real impeachment hearing in which "executive privilege" does not apply and in which witnesses are permitted to speak.
UPDATE: There's also this rule that would apply even in an impeachment hearing from the House Practice Manual:
"On the other hand, the rules do not permit the use of language that is personally offensive toward the President. Manual Sec. 370; 5 \ Hinds Sec. 5094.
For example, it is out of order to call the President a 'liar' or a 'hypocrite' or to refer to accusations of sexual misconduct. Manual Sec. 370; 8 Cannon Sec. 2498;Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.16.
A Member may refer to political motives of the President in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not in order. 8 Cannon Sec. 2497. For example, a Member may not in debate describe the President's veto of a bill as 'cowardly' (Manual Sec. 370), or charge that he has been 'intellectually dishonest' (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.15) or refer to him as 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy (Deschler-Brown Ch 29 Sec. 47.17). Members must abstain from personally offensive language even during impeachment proceedings."
Someone who violates that rule or the one below can have their remarks stricken and lose the privilege to speak for the rest of the hearing.
UPDATE: Elliott Adams, President of Veterans for Peace, and a descendant of American revolutionary Sam Adams, will testify in support of impeachment!
Apparently the rules of Congress are designed to allow impeachable offenses to be discussed only in impeachment hearings. Apparently this didn't occur to Chairman Conyers when he decided to hold a non-impeachment impeachment hearing. As a result, his hearing may be quickly shut down, and he will have a choice of holding a real impeachment hearing, resigning, or dropping the pretense that he intends to resist Cheney and Bush in any way whatsoever.
UPDATE: Bruce Fein is on agenda for sure and will push impeachment and will release his remarks today, will refer to "the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" - which is actually more accurate than "the president" anyway.
UPDATE: I am in the process of loading on my computer video of today's press conference with myself, Ray McGovern, Bruce Fein, Crystal Kim, Cynthia Papermaster, and Cindy Sheehan. Fein handed out copies of his prepared remarks for tomorrow and they are great and they promote impeachment, and he simply had to not name the president.
He also pointed out that the rule in the Jefferson Manual relevant to not bad-mounthing the president begins with an historical prohibition on badmouthing the king. Fein also argues that, in fact, George W. Bush has far more power than George III ever had. Also Fein will have a new book next month called "Constitutional Peril." He says the first panel tomorrow will be congress members and that Wexler may testify.
UPDATE : Rumor has it there are no votes tomorrow, giving members an excuse to leave town (except for that whole oath to defend the Constitution thing).
UPDATE: Sensenbrenner and Keller are not coming, pleading that a 3-day week is hard enough work for Republicans and being asked to work on Friday is cruel and unusual.
· House Hearing on Executive Power & Constitutional Limitations (10am) - LIVE
I assume this is the hearing?
What I saw was a dismal failure, and Rep Conyers failed to call for order. Embarassment.
EDIT
Saw much of it last night, and I withdraw my earlier statement!
I had it on in the background all day, and actually watched some of it (had to chase around two year old most of the time.) I was startled to hear some of those Dem. Congress members coming out so strongly in favor of doing something, anything, impeachment, or whatever, since I had only heard Kucinich and Wexler actually make prominent accusations on the floor of Congress. Actually, I got the idea that the official reason for the hearing was for discussion of the power of the Presidency. But the Republicans repeatedly referred to the "Impeachment" this and that. Some of them were just unbearable, and only asked questions of the two panelists who were "Bush friendly". I was also surprised to hear Bugliosi, who has written "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." I have heard him interviewed several times on Air America shows, but he has not been asked anywhere else on any media.
I did miss the last hour completely, however. I would like to know how it was concluded: is this it, will it be continued, hearing closed???????? Anyone watch it please report.
I agree that Conyers didn't have good control of the hearing, let some speakers go on long after their time limit, and waited too long to have the disrupters in the audience to be escorted out. But he had the hearing, you have to give him credit for that. I can't summarize the speakers; there were all kinds of ideas about what could, should, could not, should not be done about the unlawful behavior of the B*** Administration. Nearly all agreed it has been unlawful.
We're in a heap of trouble....