ImpeachForChange

How to Create a Congressional District Impeachment Committee

Bob Fertik — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:11:57 -0500

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders in Congress say impeaching Bush is "off the table." We must change their minds!

Our plan is simple: we will form Impeachment Committees in all 435 Congressional Districts to persuade all of our Representatives to support impeachment.

Help us Impeach Bush by taking the following 4 steps:

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District.
2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters.
3. Build support for impeachment by holding an educational town forum, writing letters to the editor, etc.
4. Meet with your Representative, deliver the petitions and ask them to Impeach Bush.

More detailed instructions are below.

1. Join (or create) an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District (existing committees here)

Login to Democrats.com
Check your profile to make sure your Congressional District is correct - if not, click "Change Personal Information" below Voter Registration and fix your address (no apartment please), then save the changes - if the Congressional District is still wrong, contact us with the correct district
Click the "Local" button in the navigation box at the upper left to check for the latest announcements in your Congressional District (also County and State)
Look for an announcement of an Impeachment Committee in your Congressional District. If you do see one, reply to it and say you want to help.
If you do not see one:
- click the link to "create forum topic"
- for subject, enter "Impeachment Committee"
- for forum, choose "Impeachment - Congressional District Organizing"
- for topic, choose "ImpeachForChange"
- for subscriptions, click the box if you want to get an email when someone from your district replies
- for local, choose "Congressional District"
- in the body, identify your Congressperson by name (if you don't know click here)
- add the address of their District Office by searching for their name here and clicking their name and looking under "Contact Information" for the "District Office"
(note: newly elected Members will not have offices until January)
- Propose a time and place when local activists can conveniently meet
- we suggest Saturday at noon at the busiest place in town, but another time and place might work better for your group

2. Collect petitions and handwritten letters (click printer-friendly version below to print this page)

download our petition form
print as many copies as you'll need (19 signers per page)
bring clipboards and pens
bring blank paper for handwritten letters
bring an ironing board for letterwriting (optional)
wear impeachment buttons or anti-war buttons
stand in a safe location that gets a lot of foot traffic (but don't block anyone)
as people approach you, ask them in a reasonably loud voice if they would like to sign our petition to impeach Bush
if they say yes, hand them the clipboard and pen and thank them
tell them you will email them when you get home so they can sign our full petition online and email it directly to their Representative and get a personal reply
ask them if they have another minute to write a personal letter that you will hand-deliver
here is a simple letter they can copy or modify:
[Date]
Dear Rep. X,
I urge you to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution and breaking the law. I am particularly upset that they:
- lied about Iraq to start a war
- allowed torture of prisoners
- gave corrupt no-bid contracts to their rich friends
- wiretapped our phones and emails without a warrant
Sincerely,
[Name and address]
when it's time to leave, find a copy shop where you can make copies of the petitions (not handwritten letters)
bring (or mail) the original petitions and letters to the Representative (you can call in advance to get the name of the District Manager and schedule a brief visit)
keep the copies to keypunch the emails (only) into our petition invitation form
the keypunchers should login and click here:
http://democrats.com/impeach-petition
and look just below the message for the "send to friend" link
the "send to friend" page lets you keypunch up to 20 email addresses, one per line
copy/paste all the emails and save them in a convenient document (Email distribution list, spreadsheet, or Word document) for future organizing in your community
press "submit"
this will email each person and invite them to sign our petition

3. Write letters to the editor and op-eds and call radio and TV talk shows because Representatives pay attention to the issues people are raising in the local media.

4. Organize a Honk-to-Impeach event - if possible do it every week, same time same place.

5. Schedule a district meeting with your Representative

Your Representative spends some work weeks in Washington and some at home.
November will be mostly in Washington, December and January mostly at home.
Designate one well-spoken person to call the District Office and request a meeting with a group of impeachment supporters to discuss why impeachment is absolutely necessary.
Each member of the group should read and bring one book or serious article on impeachment and prepare a couple of sentences for the meeting summarizing the most important argument in that book or article.
The group should meet for coffee an hour before the meeting to discuss who will say what and avoid duplication.
The person who scheduled the meeting should be the first to speak and thank the Representative for the meeting and then let each person say their name and neighborhood
One person should take notes
The key questions to ask are:
Do you agree that invading Iraq on the basis of lies is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that allowing prisoners to be tortured is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that wiretapping countless innocent Americans without a warrant is an impeachable offense?
Do you agree that nullifying laws with signing statements is an impeachable offense?
If you agree that one or more are impeachable offenses, what will it take for you to publicly support impeachment?

6. Organize a Town Hall Meeting on December 10, 2006.

Details here.

Find Your Congressional District Impeachment Committee

Bob Fertik — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:49:47 -0500

AL03, AZ01, AZ03, AZ08, CA01, CA03, CA05, CA06, CA07, CA09, CA11, CA13, CA14, CA13-14-15, CA23, CA25, CA26, CA28, CA29, CA30, CA36, CA37, CA38, CA47, CA49, CA50, CA51, CA52, CA53, CO01, CO03, CO07, CT04, CT05, DC00, DE00, FL01, FL02, FL06, FL08, FL10, FL16-19-22, FL18, FL20, FL24, GA07, HI01, HI02, IA05, IL01, IL03, IL05, IL09, IL11, IL13, IL16, IN01, IN05, IN06, IN09, KS01, KY06, LA02, MA01, MA03, MA04, MA05, MA06, MA07, MA08, MA10, MD03, MD06, ME01, MI03, MI06, MI07, MI10, MI12, MN01, MN04, MN05, MO03, MO08, MA02, MS03, NC02, NC04, NC05, NC06, NC09, NC10, NC11, NC13, ND00, NE03, NH01, NH02, NJ01, NJ12, NY05, NY07, NY08, NY09, NY10, NY11, NY12, NY13, NY14, NY15, NY18, NY19, NY20, NY21, NY22, NY23, NY24, NY28, OH11, OH18, OK01, OK05, OR01, OR02, OR03, OR04, PA06, PA07, PA08, PA11, PA13, PA15, PA17, PA18, PA19, SC03, SD00, TN05, TX07, TX18, TX24, TX25, UT01, UT02, VA02, VA03, VA06, VA07, VA08, VA11, VT00, WA01, WA02, WA03, WA06, WA07, WA08, WA09, WI02, WI03, WV01, WV02

Don't see a committee in your district? Help us create one! http://democrats.com/cdic

Cheney Tied to Ted Stevens' Bribery Scandal

Bob Fertik — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:39:03 -0400

ThinkProgress:

Newsweek reports that in a conversation “secretly tape-recorded by the FBI on June 25, 2006,” Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) “discussed ways to get a pipeline bill through the Alaska Legislature with Bill Allen, an oil-services executive accused of providing the senator with about $250,000 in undisclosed financial benefits.” Stevens promised Allen, “I’m gonna try to see if I can get some bigwigs from back here and say, ‘Look … you gotta get this done’.” Two days later, Vice President Cheney undertook the unusual move of writing a letter to the Alaska Legislature urging members to “promptly enact” a bill to build the pipeline.

To summarize: Bill Allen is accused of bribing Ted Stevens to get his pipeline deal approved by the Alaska Legislature. Stevens promised "bigwigs" would help. Two days later, Cheney helped.

Cheney may or may not have been bribed directly, but he participated in a bribery scheme. Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) went to jail for a similar scheme involving Jack Abramoff.

The Constitution is crystal clear on bribery; after treason, it is the gravest possible offense:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So when will Congress impeach Dick Cheney?

Kucinich Pursues Impeachment to Prevent 'October Surprise' Attack on Iran

Bob Fertik — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:29:57 -0400

Rightwinger Deborah Solomon interviewed Dennis Kucinich for the NY Times and got a lot more than she bargained for - the truth:

Q: But why bother with impeachment when Bush is on his way out of Washington anyhow?

A: This president is capable of taking us into war, in October, on the eve of an election, to try to change the outcome of the election. We need to keep the ability to impeach at the ready in the event that this president continues to exercise a wanton approach toward the use of power, particularly the war power. The events in Georgia are a premonition.

Q: A premonition of what?

A: A premonition of an attack on Iran. When Georgia moves against South Ossetia as the Olympics are starting, the Bush administration begins its own Olympics — the war Olympics.

Q: Are you saying the Bush administration is likely to declare war soon just to help Republican candidates pick up some votes?

A: Well, you know, they increased the funding to Georgia a while back for military purposes.

Q: You think President Saakashvili of Georgia was encouraged, possibly by the American government, to cry victim?

A: Look. Saakashvili had an American lobbyist who is now part of the McCain campaign, and I am sure he was given advice. The idea of striking during the Olympics would have to come out of Madison Avenue. We have to be able to see through this. And the one thing I have shown an ability to do is to cut through the b.s.

To Avoid Impeachment, Musharraf Resigns

Bob Fertik — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:57 -0400

One of the stupidest anti-impeachment arguments from Democrats like Jerrold Nadler is "we won't get 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Bush or Cheney, so we shouldn't bother to start impeachment hearings in the House."

Nadler and other Democrats who cite this idiocy have forgotten that Richard Nixon was never convicted by the Senate - or even impeached by the House. Instead, the House Judiciary Committee held impeachment hearings, which led to the drafting of three Articles of Impeachment, which were then voted on by the Judiciary Commitee. When a majority of the Committee voted to impeach, Richard Nixon decided to resign rather than put himself - or the country he loved - through more of an impeachment ordeal.

Today, ~~Dictator~~ "President" Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan made exactly the same decision as Nixon.

Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced that he would resign Monday, ending nearly nine years as one of the United States’ most important allies in the campaign against terrorism.

Speaking on television from his presidential office here at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf, dressed in a gray suit and tie, said that after consulting with his aides, “I have decided to resign today.” He said he was putting national interest above “personal bravado.”

“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” he said, adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.

Is it possible to imagine George Bush putting America before his ego? Not really. But what harm could there be in forcing Bush to make that choice?

Conyers Investigates New Impeachable Crimes

Bob Fertik — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:59:45 -0400

Investigative reporter Ron Suskind's book "The Way of the World" has exposed new impeachable crimes by the Bush Administration, and House Judiciary Chair John Conyers has launched an investigation.

Suskind's most important revelation is that Iraq's Intelligence Minister, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, became a U.S.-British spy two months before George Bush invaded Iraq. Habbush insisted Iraq had no WMD's or Al Qaeda ties, but Bush didn't want the truth because he was determined to invade Iraq.

Bush told his briefers, "why don’t you tell him to give us something we can use to make our case?"

This is the most direct proof yet that George Bush knew Iraq had no WMD's or Al Qaeda ties, yet deliberately lied about them to Congress and the American people. According to 60 Minutes, Bush received a similar report in 2002 from Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, who was also a U.S. spy.

Suskind also reveals that months after the invasion, when no WMD's or Al Qaeda ties were found, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter from Habbush to "prove" both. The CIA produced that forgery and gave it to neocon mouthpiece Con Coughlin of Conrad Black's U.K. Telegraph, who lied about the "letter" on Meet the Press with Tom Brokaw. (Brokaw, unlike Dan Rather, has never been held accountable for promoting a forged document.) By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from creating propaganda to mislead Americans, so when the Bush Administration ordered the CIA to produce the Habbush forgery, they committed yet another impeachable crime.

On Thursday, John Conyers told Democracy Now that he is actively investigating Suskind's revelations and may call Habbush and others as witnesses.

Of course Conyers' biggest problem is convincing Speaker Nancy Pelosi that George Bush committed a single crime. Pelosi was asked about impeachment repeatedly this week during her book tour; even the NY Times called it her Why-Haven’t-You Impeached-the-President Tour. Yet Pelosi insists Congress has no evidence that Bush committed any crimes at all. One activist politely handed Pelosi a copy of Dennis Kucinich's 36 Articles of Impeachment, so we gave him a $1,000 reward. We will continue to offer awards up to $1,000 for citizen journalists who get Pelosi to give a substantive answer to our simple question: "Of the 36 detailed Articles of Impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich, do you consider any to be crimes?"

Congress will return on September 8 to work for 3 weeks before adjourning to campaign. With Suskind's new evidence Bush's crimes, Speaker Pelosi could call a lame-duck session in November to vote on Articles of Impeachment - exactly as Speaker Newt Gingrich did in 1998.

Tell Congress to impeach Bush for his Iraq Lies:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142

Pelosi Denies Impeachment Reality in San Rafael

Bob Fertik — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:35:03 -0400

The following four interactions took place at Speaker Pelosi's book signing event in San Rafael, CA, while getting books signed by Speaker Pelosi. Each answer gives a tiny window into Pelosi's "thinking," which is nothing more than denial of the reality that Bush is a criminal who will defy subpoenas until his last day, when his final act will be to pardon himself and everyone else.

Obviously Pelosi is counting the days until Bush is gone, hoping she will soon be working with President Obama. But in seven days? On August 12, she said he'll be gone in "a hundred days," apparently referring to election day on November 4 (which was then 84 days away). But Bush will still have the nuclear button, the veto pen, and the pardon stamp until January 20, 2009, which is 160 days away. And he's happy to use them all, regardless of the disastrous consequences.

Sophie de Vries, Democrats.com:

Since I wasn't a part of the contest, my question to Pelosi was as follows:

"Do you have a plan to prevent Bush from pardoning himself and others since you've taken impeachment off the table?"

Pelosi looked surprised and responded: "Why would Bush want to pardon himself?"

I drew a blank momentarily, stunned, and responded: "Because he's committed crimes."

Pelosi with head down, writing in book: "What crimes?", said with emphasis and a tight voice.

"Impeachable crimes." I said as the guards started moving towards me. I left quickly.

Phil Burk, ImpeachBush.tv:

Phil: I have a question about power. [guards move closer]

Pelosi: OK

Phil: How does Congress enforce its oversight powers to subpoena witnesses when it does not have the threat of impeachment?

Pelosi: We can get a court order.

Phil: But they can just ignore the court order.

Pelosi: Look, they're going to be out of there in seven days.

Phil: Seven days? What does that mean? Without the threat of impeachment how do you stop them from ignoring the court order or breaking laws?

Pelosi: We will have a court ruling. Thank you. Next person.

Guard: OK, your time is up.

Phil: Without impeachment, Congress can't enforce oversight. [guard gives me a dirty look]

Phil: [exits stage left]

I have no idea what "out of there in seven days" means. I may have misheard her but it was spoken clearly.

Shirley G., Ran for Pelosi's seat in primary:

Slg--hi, how are you?

Np--hi shirley. Thanks for coming.

Slg--I'm glad we finally get to meet! I want to ask you one quick question. Conyers has said that he'd move forward on impeachment if bush invaded iran. That's his line in the sand. I'm really interested in YOUR line in the sand.

Np--well he can draw any line he wants because he's in charge. It's his committee.

Slg--but what would make you say "enough is enough?"

Np--I don't think you can impeach on the strength of an action. I think in terms of invading Iran, I don't think they'll do that. Nonetheless, I think you have to look at what they do as far as the constitution is concerned.

Slg--have you read this book (ron suskind's) yet?

Np--no I haven't but I'd like to.

Slg--would you like to have it?

Np--no, I'll get my own.

Slg--great, I hope you will because it really goes into the forgery.

Np--thanks for coming.

Slg--you're welcome.

I think her response was focused only on the "action" of invading Iran, not on any of the other criminal actions that bush has taken, which was my original take. Which makes more sense, but it's such a literal response! And of course, she never did answer my question as to her "enough."

Cynthia Papermaster, National Impeachment Network:

I listened intently to the Speaker as she told us [the audience] the three things she advises every Representative to keep in mind: Constitution; Constituents; Conscience.

As I approached Nancy I fumbled with my phone to turn on the video camera sound. Then it was my turn.

"Speaker Pelosi, it's a great honor to meet you. Thank you for writing this inspirational book-- I'm giving it to my daughter." I shook hands with her.

"Are you Cynthia?"

"Yes" (I'm thinking-- how does she know my name? Then I realize the yellow post-it in the book says my name so Nancy will know what to write) "Nancy, I have to tell you-- please follow your conscience and start impeachment hearings. You know they've committed crimes, don't you?"

Pelosi: "Yes, they certainly have" (in a low voice, with disgust)

"Well, then please, please impeach them. For the Constitution, your Constituents and your Conscience." Then security gently moved me along.

Given Pelosi's massive hostility to impeachment questions, everyone did great work!

Pelosi Arrests Citizens Who Challenge Her

Bob Fertik — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:52:15 -0400

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's tour to promote her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters has turned into a debacle for Pelosi.

The only "power" Pelosi seems to "know" is the power to arrest people who pay $30 to buy her book and ask her a question she doesn't like. Her only "message to America's daughters" is STFU.

When it comes to dissent, Pelosi is no different from George Bush or the Chinese government. Fortunately San Francisco voters have a choice: after an enormous grassroots effort, peace mom Cindy Sheehan will be on the ballot against Pelosi.

Pelosi was greeted at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles by activists who were outside and inside. Below are their reports and photos:

Marcy Winograd, who got 36% of the vote in a 2006 primary against BushDemocrat Jane Harman (D):

Pelosi thanked her host, American Jewish University, proclaimed her support for Israel as a Jewish state, and then talked about the importance of women owning their power – this from the woman who upon assuming her role as Speaker of the House declared impeachment off the table, thus immediately surrendering her power to hold the Bush administration accountable for war crimes.

Mid-way through Pelosi's somewhat surreal Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters book chat in Los Angeles -- Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center -- couldn't take the small-talk and platitudes anymore.

Jumping up, a few seats back from the stage, Thottam shouted, "Who gave you the right to destroy the Constitution and take Impeachment off the table? Our first, second, fourth, fifth and eight Constitutional amendments are being annihilated. 1 million Iraqis are dead. 5,000 Americans including Cindy Sheehan's son. We've spent over 1 trillion taxpayer dollars on a war that should never have been started. Our constitution is being destroyed, Nancy. Bring back our Constitution... Bring it back ..."

Security moved in on Peter, took him away, arrested him and threw him in jail for the night. He is scheduled to appear in court Sept. 4th.

Quote from Peter Thottam -- Security Guard called the LAPD officers and made a citizen's arrest. Spent the night in jail. The police officers were sympathetic and agreed about the role of big money in Congress. They agreed that Pelosi and these reps are just tools.

Seconds after Peter's challenge, I shot up, two rows back from the stage, smack dab in the center of the audience, asking, Nancy, were you fully briefed on torture? Were you briefed on torture? Then came Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, holding out a copy of the US Constitution, offering it to Pelosi, just in case she missed the repeated mentions of impeachment as a remedy for abuse of power. Security moved in on Jodie, too, whisking her out of the auditorium at American Jewish University, high atop Sepulveda, just past the fifty protestors who came to greet Pelosi with Impeachment is on Our Table and Out of Iraq Now! and No Attack on Iran! signs and banners.

During Pelosi’s entire book talk, some of us -- Sara Nichols, Jodie Evans, Linda Milazzo, Marcy Winograd, Tighe Barry – held up our Nancy books with messages we scrawled in big black letters on the inside cover -- Protect Iran - Honor Your Oath - Impeach! - Hold Bolton and Rove in Contempt -- Nancy, Torture? Torture? Torture? and more about specific articles of the Constitution which called for impeachment. Security personnel whispered, watched us -- seemingly unsure of how to respond to this act of subtle, yet distracting resistance.

At one point during her talk, Pelosi, visibly nervous, looked right at us, those of us sitting two rows back, front and center, and told us, almost apologetically, "I was an activist too, I am a progressive, I want the war to end, too. I want to get out of Iraq" and then -- "We need to move our troops into Afghanistan, not Iraq."

When Pelosi finished, no questions taken, no dialogue allowed, several of us shouted at her, Use your power, Nancy, to impeach these war criminals. Use your power! Do not be complicit!

CodePink's Jodie Evans:

Pelosi is on a tour for her book "Know Your Power". At the American Jewish University we had over 40 people outside with giant "Impeach" banners. The road to parking was lined with people and messages.

Twelve of us had tickets to get in. We met at 6:30 PM to discuss the order we would stand up with our messages at the booksigning. Some were chosen to wait for their time at the book signing after Pelosi's talk to get their questions answered.

Our cameras were taken away in the search before entering. As they were looking in my bag, they got distracted by someone else and I was waved by with, "You look harmless."

Eight of us sat on the second row in the middle, including Tighe, Sara Nichols, Marcy Winograd, Linda Milazzo and others. We wrote messages with our sharpie, such as: "Use your Power, Torture?" "You Knew?" "Uphold the Constitution" etc. on the back inside covers of the books. After Pelosi had started talking, we raised the books showing the messages. It was a row of dissent!

Pelosi was flustered, couldn't remember the questions asked and stammered. Then a security guard disrupted us and tried to get us to leave, gesturing and frowning; we didn't look at him or move but stayed seated for 20 minutes.

Then Pelosi started to talk about how good all the members of Congress are and Peter Thottam lost it and stood up screaming at her. He resisted those who were trying to drag him out. As he was being dragged out we were supporting his message and yelling out our own.

Then it quieted and Pelosi talked about how she was upholding the constitution and I leapt up and said, "No you aren't!" and offered her Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment, Bugliosi's book and Susskind's book about how Bush has broken the law. I cited her comment on the TV program "The View" [about asking for reasons for impeachment] and told her I was delivering what she asked for.

Security tried to shut me up but Pelosi said she, Pelosi "came from the streets" and I had a right to speak, until finally, she started yelling at me that she WAS upholding the constitution and that impeachment would fail. By then security had made it to the middle of the row and dragged me out.

The police escorted me to where Peter was in handcuffs and I told them I did not resist and she had told me to speak. Security told the police that was true so I was escorted to my car and told if I was found on that property that night I would be arrested. As I left there were still 20 activists outside with the Impeachment banners, they had just ordered pizza and were staying until she drove past with her 2 daughters.

After I left, in "popcorn" progression everyone else got up with their question and message, the host finally said it is over because these people have been too disruptive, and the pinkers went to get books signed. The event organizers cut off the signing before our team got to the table.

Here's Jason Leopold and Alan Breslauer in The Public Record (click link for video):

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance Monday at a West Los Angeles college to discuss her recently published book was marred by dozens of protestors and several angry outbursts by audience members who demanded Pelosi immediately authorize a House committee to hold impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush.

The Speaker made it clear she would not support any effort to hold impeachment hearings against President Bush saying that the president "will be gone in a hundred days."

Halfway through her discussion at The American University of Judaism, where more than 300 people paid $30 each to hear Pelosi speak about her upbringing and her family's impact on her political career as detailed in her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, the topic shifted to Congress's historically low approval rating and how it reflected on Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker.
American University of Judaism's Rabbi Robert Wexler, who moderated the 75 minute discussion, asked Pelosi to analyze a recent Rasmussen poll that found nine percent of voters dpolled believed Congress was doing a good job, far lower than President Bush's overall approval rating.

According to the results of the July poll, 72 percent of voters believe Congress is more interested in furthering their own political careers. Fourteen percent believe members of Congress are genuinely interested in helping people.

Pelosi responded to the statistics by defending her performance and the performance of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

"I preside over the greatest collection of integrity and idealism," Pelosi said.

Prior to her appearance in West Los Angeles Monday evening, CNN’s Larry King interviewed Pelosi. She told King she was willing to drop her staunch opposition to offshore drilling and would likely allow the House to vote on the issue.

She said, in her opinion, the reason behind Congress’s historically low approval rating was largely due to the fact that Democrats could not muster up the votes to end the Iraq war, which the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco said she could not do much about because of the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in both Houses.

Wexler, however, continued to press Pelosi to elaborate on her response given that the Rasmussen poll suggested that a wide-range of issues beyond the Iraq war was responsible for Congress’s single-digit approval.
Pelosi, visibly flustered, said she was well aware that “much more work needs to be done.”

In November 2006, Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift the balance of power in Washington for the first time in 12 years.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

But Pelosi, who became House Speaker, never managed to exact the change she promised. She explained that she and her colleagues tried vigorously to pass legislation to end the war in Iraq.

"The public doesn’t want to know about process and 60 votes, they want outcomes, they want results," Pelosi said, explaining why Democrats could not end the war as promised prior to the midterm 2006 elections.

But Pelosi’s comments appeared disingenuous to many, since she was largely responsible for crafting an appropriations bill in backroom discussions with House Democratic leaders, passed in June, and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions on Iraq war benchmarks if Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill with little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

In fact, since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables that Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

When Pelosi launched into the reasons an administration led by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would be dangerous for the country, identifying the candidate's support for an endless war in Iraq and his intention to uphold many of the questionable constitutional interpretations relating to torture and civil liberties during the Bush administration, Pelosi said the only way to "dig our way out" is by electing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today."

Her response led Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, to demand Pelosi "do her job" and pursue impeachment hearings against President Bush for launching a war on false pretenses.

"Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet? Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium and turned him over to officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. “One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments."

Pelosi seemed stunned by the outburst, but the way she addressed Thottam’s charges further fanned the flames and led to additional verbal protests over her decision not to hold the administration accountable for what many individuals in the audience believe are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by President Bush.

When a member of the activist group Code Pink stood up and insisted Pelosi brush up on her reading regarding evidence of the Bush administration's long list of alleged constitutional violations, Pelosi reacted angrily.

"I take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't tell me that I don't do that,” Pelosi said, using hand gestures to emphasize her disdain over the impeachment demands. "Why don't you go picket the Republicans in Congress that will not allow us to have a vote on the war. This is not very effective. Not very effective."

"As Speaker of the house, the third highest office, first is the president, then vice president, and then Speaker, I take my responsibilities deadly seriously,” Pelosi said. “I try to promote bipartisanship but that's not what the other side wants."

Before Election 2006, Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, with Democrats hoping to gain additional seats in Election 2008, a similar political calculation applies, fearing a backlash against a last-minute drive to impeach Bush and Cheney. Bush knows that Pelosi long ago rejected impeachment proceedings, the one instrument included in the Constitution for Congress to wield against a President who has abused his powers.

Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment hearings or cut off funding for the Iraq war prompted antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan last year to launch a campaign for Pelosi's congressional seat. On Monday, San Francisco election officials said Sheehan has obtained enough registered voters on her petitions to be placed on the November ballot. Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, is running as an Independent.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s presentation, Pelosi signed books but refused to answer questions about her policy decisions. The Public Record asked Pelosi whether she would authorize the full House to vote on contempt charges against former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Immediately following his query to Pelosi, The Public Record's Alan Breslauer was grabbed by Secret Service and dragged away from the table where Pelosi was signing copies of her book. The Speaker did respond to Breslauer's question, however, saying a vote on contempt charges against Rove is "up to [House Judiciary Committee Chairman John] Conyers."

Attorney Peter Thottam:

Police booking. Interesting process. Call me if you need details. I think Linda Sutton may have audio. She and Dorothy were both sitting next to me.

Essence of the comment (made after hearing Pelosi's hour long stream of b.s./nonsense/gender role anectodes and her inane comments about how truly great her fellow congressional reps were ('all but 50' of the 460 plus Congressional House of Rep members) :

"I am going to vomit. Who gave you the right to destroy the Constitution and take Impeachment off the table? Our first, second, fourth, fifth and eight Constitutional amendments are being annihilated. 1 million Iraqis are dead. 5,000 Americans including Cindy Sheehan's son. We've spent over 1 trillion taxpayer dollars on a war that should never have been started. Our constitution is being destroyed, Nancy. Bring back our Constitution... Bring it back (being dragged out of the room)..." [there may have been more, I'm not sure. Linda Sutton was taping]

Security Gaurd called the LAPD officers and made a citizen's arrest.   Spent the night in jail. The police officers were sympathetic and agreed about the role of big money in Congress. They agreed that Pelosi and these reps are just tools.

Would do it again? Absolutely. One of the best things I've ever done. The look on her face was priceless. Deer in the headlights X 10?

We are far too passive and non-confrontational. Kumbaya moments?   People are dying...

Who are we kidding. I plan to resign and turn in my bar license. Laws? Who are we kidding.

I know Jodie spoke afterwards. Ditto w/ Jennifer.   Jodie wasn't booked. I'm not sure about Jennifer.

Insights on others? Pelosi/Congress needs to hear from Millions like us... Enough w/ the street protests. Enough with the cyberspace email streams...

I just got out of the Pacific Division station. Just caught a cab and got your voicemails (they gave me back my confiscated cell phone about one hour ago). Gotta rush to the airport. I have a plane to catch.

The system is clearly non-functional. It doesn't work. The media is a circus. A side-show. They lie. They lie.... They lie.   The disconnect b/w Nancy Pelosi (and many of the people in that audience) w/ what is going on here in the U.S. and abroad is apalling. This clown is Speaker of the House? I plan to make the failure of impeachment and of Congress a center-piece in my September 11th talk with Bowman, Griffin. Damn it...

I have an appearance in court Sept. 4th. I'll let you know how it goes.

How to Put Rove Behind Bars for Years

davidswanson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:58:42 -0400

By David Swanson

Last August, a group of Congressman Henry Waxman's constituents met with him and urged him to make use of inherent contempt. They were then obliged to explain to him what inherent contempt is. While the current (110th) Congress has probably seen more requests, subpoenas, and contempt citations ignored than all previous Congresses combined, Waxman has certainly endured more such insult than all other committee chairs combined in the current Congress. He's single-handedly destroyed whole forests with the flood of letters and requests and subpoenas he's sent down Pennsylvania Avenue, and yet he was apparently unaware of a procedure commonly used by Congress through most of this nation's history that would actually compel people to show up and answer questions and produce documents.

Over the past 12 months a vague sort of awareness of inherent contempt has crept into the minds of certain committee members and party leaders, almost entirely as a result of thousands of citizens demanding that they immediately make use of it. Quasi-grass-roots groups afraid to demand impeachment have taken up the cry for inherent contempt, but pro-impeachment groups have not all paid sufficient attention to it, their eyes set on a bigger and better prize. And, of course, in a sane world we would see impeachment happening. The latest overwhelming piece of evidence of the most egregious impeachable offense conceivable comes from Ron Suskind's book released this week reporting that Iraq's intelligence chief had informed the United States prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. George Tenet and the White House have admitted the truth of this, but absurdly dismissed it as unimportant.

However, here's an additional vital piece of information: our so-called representatives only intend to pretend to work for two more weeks this year, and those two weeks are scheduled for September. If anything could move them to impeachment (and more days at the office), perhaps a fight over inherent contempt could. Therefore, I propose we all demand one. (And if you bear with me, I'll tell you exactly what inherent contempt is.)

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren recently wrote the following dismissive letter to her constituents who were demanding inherent contempt:

"Thank you for contacting me about Karl Rove's failure to appear before the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts with me. The Judiciary Committee is taking Karl Rove's failure to testify very seriously, and we are currently considering all options - including contempt proceedings -- to compel him to answer important questions regarding the firing of several U.S. attorneys. Some have suggested that Congress implement 'inherent contempt' as if that is a viable option. The jail cell in the basement of the Capitol doesn't exist and the Sergeant at Arms is an over 60 year old executive. Congress is not a police force, and we will likely need to continue to utilize the courts and system of justice to pursue these matters. Again, thanks for being in touch. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I may ever be of assistance to you or your family."

Congresswoman Lofgren is very badly informed or chooses to pretend to be. The age of the Sergeant at Arms is not a decisive factor in the question of whether the Congress will engage in what for most of its history was understood as "inherent self-protection". There is a Sergeant at Arms for the House and one for the Senate, there are deputies, and there is an entire Capitol police force. In one of the earliest uses of "inherent contempt" a prisoner of the United States Congress argued that a warrant used to arrest him was invalid because it had been addressed to the Sergeant at Arms and had been enforced by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the warrant was still valid; and that practice was subsequently followed for many decades. The Sergeant at Arms is not on his own, but is permitted and required to employ subordinates as needed. In 1877 a Deputy Sergeant at Arms was instructed to accompany a Congressional prisoner to New Orleans to procure telegrams he had hitherto refused to produce when subpoenaed, and to accompany another prisoner to New York to be seen by his physicians. In addition, a Sergeant at Arms incapable of performing his duties can be reassigned. With labor unions banned on Capitol Hill, there shouldn't be any legal difficulties in immediately rearranging a few employees of the government.

When inherent contempt began to be discussed in 2007, having not been heard of in some 75 years, the Politico (never a publication overly careful with facts) reported that the jail had been razed in 1929. Congresswoman Lofgren, on the other hand, maintains that "the jail cell in the basement of the Capitol" doesn't exist. She seems to take no position on whether such a thing ever did exist. Both of these replies wildly miss the mark. The House or the Senate or, in fact, any committee thereof, has the power, according to tradition and to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, to instruct the Sergeant at Arms of the House or Senate to imprison anyone being charged with contempt of Congress or being thereby punished for contempt of Congress. The difficulty of finding a place to imprison them has been easily solved in a variety of ways and could be again quite quickly.

The reference to 1929 may be a reference to the building that stood on the current site of the Supreme Court building, construction of which began that year. The Old Capitol Prison was not the only thing housed in that building when it was there, was not among the initial uses for that building, and had long since ceased to be used by Congress when the building was razed. During the latter part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th, the common jail of the District of Columbia was routinely used by the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate. While the jail did not belong to Congress, an arrangement was made to use it, housing the occasional "contumacious witness" in the same building with the general DC prison population. The District Jail is described in this 1897 New York Times article. This 1934 article from Time Magazine discusses the Senate's use of the District Jail to punish contempt in both 1860 and 1934.

In 1872 a Congressional committee discussed the problem of the DC jail not being controlled by Congress, but apparently concluded that the Sergeant at Arms could keep control of a prisoner in that jail. In other instances, including that same case, a prisoner of Congress was summoned to appear by a court, and Congress instructed the Sergeant at Arms to transport the prisoner to the court to explain the situation but not to release the prisoner from his control.

Congress has not always made use of outside jails. In 1868 this measure was approved: "Resolved, That Rooms A and B, opposite the room of the solicitor of the Court of Claims, in the Capitol, be, and are hereby, assigned as guardroom and office of the Capitol police and are for that purpose placed under charge of the Sergeant-at-arms of the House with power to fit the same up for purpose specified.... Resolved, That said Wooley, for his repeated contempt of the authority of the House, be kept until otherwise ordered by the House in close confinement in the guardroom of the Capitol police by the Sergeant-at-Arms until said Wooley shall fully answer the questions above recited, and all questions put to him by said committee in relation to the subject of the investigations with which the committee is charged, and that meanwhile no person shall communicate with said Wooley, in writing or verbally, except upon the order of the Speaker."

The U.S. Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings are full of rooms that could easily be transformed into guard rooms, and are in fact almost certainly full of guard rooms already. The room where we held the Downing Street Minutes hearing in June of 2005 would work fine with very few modifications. And -- I'm sure this will surprise you -- DC is chock full of jails, several of them quite close to the Capitol. In fact, the Capitol Police make extensive and frequent use of them under an ongoing understanding with the custodians of the jails. The Capitol Police also hold people, at least temporarily, in a building very near the Senate office buildings.

Reviewing the early history of Congressional contempt reveals a mixture of offenses, including refusing to answer questions (on various topics), refusing to produce documents, failing to appear, etc., but also libeling Congress, assaulting a Congress member, beating a congress member with a cane, even Congress members themselves beating up a senator, and the case of a drunken citizen applauding inappropriately. While use of police force has disappeared as a response to recalcitrant witnesses, it is still routinely used for people who applaud inappropriately. When about 50 of us held a sit-in in Chairman John Conyers' office last summer to urge impeachment, he had us taken to a nearby jail by the Capitol Police. The age of the Sergeant at Arms didn't seem to get in the way. When Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an unacceptable T-shirt to a "State of the Union" speech, the Capitol Police sent us and the media on a wild goose chase to several different jails that they use before arriving at the one from which they actually released her.

But if use of the police has vanished since 1934 as a tool for enforcement of Congressional contempt, then what did Congresswoman Lofgren mean by suggesting that her committee was contemplating "contempt proceedings"? Well, she meant that -- in fulfillment of the popular "definition" of insanity -- Congress would consider doing with Karl Rove what it has long been doing with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, that is: waiting for the executive branch of our government to go through some sort of magical conversion and begin prosecuting its own most loyal criminals.

In the early years of this country inherent contempt was not distinguished as "inherent". It was simply called contempt. But it was enforced exclusively by Congress, just as contempt of a court was enforced by a court, just as contempt of a state legislature or an earlier colonial legislature or the British Parliament was enforced by the very same body. While the Constitution did not mention contempt, it was the consensus of Congress, later supported by multiple U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that Congress had the inherent right to this form of "self-protection". This was understood most often as protection from disruptions and assaults, but also as protection from insult and from the erosion of Congressional power through the refusal to comply with requests or subpoenas. (Interestingly, the record shows that a citation of contempt by Congress, or rather a warrant to arrest someone charged with contempt in order to put him [or her, Miers may be the first her] on trial, does not have to be preceded by a subpoena. That answers another question asked aloud by Rep. Waxman in a recent hearing.)

Common Cause recently advocated inherent contempt with this statement: "Under the inherent contempt power, the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to take Karl Rove into custody and bring him to the House where his contempt case can be tried, presumably, by a standing or select committee. If he is found by the House to be in Contempt of Congress, he can be imprisoned for an amount of time determined by the House (not to exceed the term of the 110th Congress which ends the beginning of January 2009) or until he agrees to testify. The Supreme Court has recognized the power of the House to enforce its own subpoenas through the inherent contempt provision, stating that without it, Congress 'would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it.' Before Congress asked the Justice Department to try contempt cases on its behalf, the inherent contempt power was used more than 85 times between 1795 and 1934, mostly to compel testimony and documents."

Even the Washington Post agrees: "Both chambers also have an 'inherent contempt' power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice."

Before moving on, and before I forget, I should point out that there is a reason my title claims we can put Rove away for years, while the proposal from Common Cause would only lock him up until next January. While the House must release all prisoners at the end of each two-year Congress (and has traditionally done so), the Senate need not and can hold them into the next Congress. And, remember that while the House Judiciary Committee just recently voted to hold Rove in contempt, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to do that last December. It simply hasn't yet done it, choosing to defer to the full Senate, which chooses to shut its eyes, cover its ears, and hum.

But deferring to the full House or Senate is part of the tradition of statutory contempt, not inherent contempt. It has been solidly established that inherent contempt resides in a full house or a committee. So, what is statutory contempt? Well, in 1857 Congress passed a law criminalizing contempt of Congress (and the maximum jail time is 12 months). It did so in large part precisely because of the need to free prisoners at the end of each Congress, but also because of the time-consuming nature of putting people on trial for contempt, something that was commonly done by committee, with the accused often permitted legal counsel and witnesses. Given what Congress spends its precious time on these days, who wouldn't wish for it to have back its inherent contempt power? Well, our wish is granted. Congress never lost that power, and in fact continued to exercise it up through 1934since when it has simply chosen not to. Inherent contempt is a power that resides in what the U.S. Constitution created to be the most powerful branch of the government. It cannot be overruled in court, and it cannot be vetoed or pardoned. It can also not be endlessly delayed by court appeals, which is where the House's contempt citations for Miers and Bolten now are. Delaying that court decision until the next Congress, which seems likely, makes the possibility of enforcement unlikely. And if a decision were reached, it would fall to Congress to use inherent contempt to enforce it anyway.

On April 15, 2008, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) laid out its understanding of contempt powers in an updated report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

This report describes the first use of Congressional contempt in 1795. Bizarrely, to the modern eye, the matter arose when a number of Congress Members protested that someone had attempted to bribe them. While today's members of Congress will hardly deign to speak with anyone who has not properly bribed them through our "campaign financing" system, at that time this action was considered an insult to the dignity of Congress. Yes, Congress was believed to possess dignity. (Another early case involved a newspaper falsely reporting that the Senate had passed a bill. Nowadays it's acceptable for the president to falsely sign a bill that wasn't passed. False reporting these days is almost considered a patriotic duty.)

The CRS report disagrees with the Bush administration's assertions of "executive privilege" but cannot change the fact that they are likely to be raised again as often as needed. And the report suggests that the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination applies in certain contexts. However, past tradition makes that claim debatable, and the statute reads:

"U.S. CODE
TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6--CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous."

The power of Congress that I am proposing it use or lose is not the sort of power the White House has claimed to randomly kidnap, detain, disappear, torture, and murder. Everything Congress does in this regard must be open and public. It must not randomly, even if publicly, arrest someone for an offense unrelated to contempt of Congress - or for no offense at all. It must allow communication with legal counsel and family. It must treat everyone humanely. It must not abuse its power, and such abuses must be checked by the judicial branch. The purpose of Congress detaining prisoners is to compel them to produce information believed to be of potentially vital importance to the governance of our nation.

The CRS report provides very little background on this, but a great deal can easily be had. Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon's Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You'll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales's endless recitations of "I do not recall."

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his "sources" just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress. Imagine trying that with ABC News executives until they revealed who fed them the anthrax-is-from-Iraq lies.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held -- literally held -- him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved "the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States." The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned. Imagine locking up the attendees of Cheney's secret energy task force meetings until they explained how our supposedly democratic government arrived at some of its worst recent decisions.

Various cases of contempt in the past have involved perceived insults to Congress and have been resolved by a simple apology. This may strike people today as humorous and vain. I find less fault in it than I do in today's Congress, which appears completely incapable of feeling either shame or self-respect. If impeachment is off the table, inherent contempt is in the past, contempt citations are delayed until moot, subpoenas are laughed at, FOIA requests are tossed in the trash, and other appeals to the executive branch to please allow itself to be overseen are simply ignored, then I must agree with Senator Walsh that we are witnessing the very death of the House and Senate. The capacity to hold someone in contempt, on its own, in September, would be a sign of life in what otherwise appears a motionless corpse.

Pelosi Makes It Hard to Ask $1,000 Question

davidswanson — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:38:58 -0400

By Gael Murphy Before the talk began Politics and Prose (host bookstore) passed around question cards so there was ample opportunity to jam the basket with the $1000 question and any others. Pelosi is a pro at deflecting confrontation. No cameras or videos were allowed - probably the host's policy. It was possible to yell out, but tricky to do without making us look stupid. After the talk some 750 pple lined up to have their books signed, so the time to say all that we wanted was very limited. We came with a handout of the Bush crimes (executive summary of minority report. You can download from AfterDowning). When our turn came to have our book dedicated to CODEPINK:Women for Peace, she greeted us with exceptional charm. We were hyper dressed in Pink. As she was signing we brought up the View and handed (placed beside) her the list of crimes explaining that the ones highlighted had been investigated thoroughly and so would be the easiest ones on which to initiate impeachment proceedings. "Here are the goods - the highlighted ones would take 2 days tops, so there is time for accountability Mame Speaker." Then we brought up Iran, specifically HR 362. She asked what it was and when we told her sever sanctions on Iran she grimaced and said with enthusiasm, "if Congress votes to bomb Iran for refusing to stop enrichment, I will vote "no"". What a bizzarre comment. Then Leslie aked her, "Why did you approve $400 million in covert activity in Iran. That isn't helping a diplomatic efforts?". I guess our time with her had run out because she waved us away and her secret service goons stepped in. There was another fellow in line who was planning to ask the $1000 question. We stupidly forgot to stick around to see his result. Note, that anyone in pink will be closely monitored either by cap police and/or by rent-a-cops on the scene. The rent-a-cop searched all bag before entry for signs and banners, not weapons and there were no metal detectors set up.