Dennis Kucinich

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.

Pelosi Video Contest Award Winner #1

Bob Fertik — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:37:58 -0400

Note: Our first $1,000 award in our Pelosi Video Contest goes to Anthony from We Are Change Ohio for his outstanding effort to get an answer from Speaker Pelosi! Andrew writes:

I confronted Nancy Pelosi with the full articles of Impeachment. The crimes were highlighted. I have the full details of the confrontation in my video.
It was extremely difficult to not only record the confrontation fully, but also to bring her the articles because security wasn't allowing any cameras or allowing anyone to bring anything to her other than her book. So I literally had to sneak all this by.
I maintained integrity by remaining polite and trying to get a response out of her without getting aggressive like other have been. I kept my confrontation on the point and not only did I confront her with this but I got two responses.
I got her to admit that she hasn't read the articles of impeachment and when I mentioned that all the crimes that Bush has done like eviscerating the Constitution she replied "that's terrible".
Unfortunately I was only able to get audio but I still have the footage in its original form on my camera intact. I hope this is the answer you folks were looking for and I did my best. She hasn't read the articles of impeachment and the crimes listed in the articles are "terrible" according to her.

The Pelosi Video Contest remains open so we encourage everyone to keep trying to get a substantive answer from Pelosi to our question: Of the 36 detailed Articles of Impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich, do you consider any to be crimes? If yes, which? If no, why not - and what (if anything) would you consider an impeachable offense?

Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

dlindorff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:40 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power
held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged
farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a
grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both
testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and
of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the
enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy
by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear
more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an
impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to
be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce
defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he
once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however
much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might
wish him to be.

At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the
most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors,
the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 36
articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)--was nonetheless a major victory for the
impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the
House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table”
during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called
for such a limited hearing.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace
activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign
had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for
listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against
Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has
been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi
is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on
impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s
just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a
failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which
we’ve been saying for years.”

So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and
intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the
House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President,
which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including
witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied
or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles
of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress
and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness
Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President
Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the
“resident” of the White House.

In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a
criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi. A former
Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of
the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an
illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shiela Jackson
Lee (D-TX) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in
invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with
an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public
monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party
to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office
staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few
dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the
Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary
Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain
in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the
proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by
Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make
it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts
calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as
“signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in
congressional hearing rooms.

It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.

It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.

At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former
representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth
Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky
Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former
Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan
Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams,
president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the
administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of
usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international
treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth
Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and
more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the
abuses were real and serious.

But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the
Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal
hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through
impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach
impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”

Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who
believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away
from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could
work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others,
including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition
to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention
among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when
impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the
bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings
that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse
of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would
happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most
Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to
justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what
the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why
Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating
to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National
Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They
don’t know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the
Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these
high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient
Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not
be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony
from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they
have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment
would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be
claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any
other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and
empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict
“constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time
backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment,
because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought
in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law
and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to
argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official,
or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked
down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it
clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with
the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused
the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing
to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with
abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”

In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any
kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically
intended.

Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call
their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even
Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we
do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that
Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep.
Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment
(Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact
their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in
co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment
hearing.

They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and
national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of
impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even
reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news
organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles.
Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.

Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple
matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s
witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to
act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and
openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the
Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even
mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known
about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his
subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the
Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to
establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be
voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a
vote.

Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of
impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve
notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be
tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave
office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is
no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative
body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.

That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes
by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the
impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line.
Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make
Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment
proceeding.

As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian
candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock
during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a
Constitution Clock.”

That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and
columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Liveblogging Impeachment Day 1

Bob Fertik — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:15:31 -0400

It's impeachment day 1 thanks to Rep. Dennis Kucinich!

David Swanson is liveblogging with impeachment activists on Capitol Hill. Kagro X has a diary on Kos explaining how Kucinich and Robert Wexler pressured Pelosi into having hearings, who will testify, and why no one can call Bush a "liar." Ralph Lopez has a diary at Kos with Corporate Media links - tell them to cover today's impeachment hearing!

#2: 9 a.m. Pacifica starts live coverage. David will be a guest at 9:30.

9:40: Robert Parry, author of "Neck Deep" - Mainstream media (MSM) doesn't feel pressured by the left Media, as they do by the right. There is a difference between how the media responds to the conservatives and liberals.

9:43: John Conyers is 79 and has been in Congress since 1961.

9:46: Scott Horton and David Swanson on now.

9:47: David Swanson currently in line; has been in line for 3 hours, and is about to be let into the room.

9:48: David was asked if this is a victory. He said no, but it is a forceful statement on Bush's multiple crimes.

9:49: Jane Harmon will not be speaking. Prepared remarks by Bruce Fein available on www.afterdowningstreet.org/

9:50: Discussion about the need for increased "street heat" that is, activism by citizens to bring about accountability.

9:52: David was asked if it's too late to impeach. He replied absolutely not! This action is not about George Bush, but rather about upholding the rule of law in our nation.

9:55: Scott Horton: When impeachment hearings commence, blanket pardons are no longer possible, and this is one of the central arguments for impeachment.

9:56: Will today's hearings set the stage for the next step toward impeachment? Yes, if there is an outpouring of public support for impeachment.

9:58: In 1974, telegrams represented the public outcry; today, it is emails.

10:00: CSPAN is showing the hearing room and Rep. John Conyers greeting people. Gavelling in soon.

10:02: Motion and commotion as people come in and settle. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is present. Crowd cheers vigorously as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth enter the hearing room. Three or four rounds of indecipherable chanting.

10:05: Panelists for Panel #1 are assembling.

10:09: You can watch the hearing webcast at http://www.c-span.org/ and read Articles of Impeachment Rep. Kucinich submitted in the "Featured Links" section.

10:16: The Committee appears to be settling in, paper shuffling has begun.

David Swanson reports that "They let a grand total of 17 members of the public into the room. A crowd of hundreds is in the hallway shouting "Shame! Shame!" despite being offered two large overflow rooms. The 17 of us include a bunch of people with IMPEACH shirts, after we won an argument in the hallway for the right to wear them -- led by Col. (retired) Ann Wright." At least half of those admitted are members of Vets for Peace.

10:19: Chairman Conyers calls hearing to order. He is reading a prepared statement about the legacy of this administration's excesses. Chairman Conyers states that there have been 45 hearings on related matters in this Congress. He points out that the Judiciary Committee took action against Harriett Miers and Josh Bolton, and expects to take action against Karl Rove.

10:27: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) says nothing will come out of this hearing; there will be no impeachment. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President. This hearing will only impeach Congress' credibility.

Rep. Smith reads a House Rule: "Rules do not permit the use of language that is personally offensive toward the President."

10:32: Rep. Robert Wexler begins opening statement. Openly calls for impeachment. This is not a partisan issue - it is an American issue. Rep. Wexler recommends studying the events surrounding the Nixon years.

10:35: Chairman Conyers reminded those in the hearing room that cheers, clapping and other similar actions are not permitted.

10:37: Rep. Steve King (R-IA-5) when Chairman Conyers mentioned "the power to remove" in his opening statement, Rep. King never thought that he would be present at a hearing where the removal of a president would be the subject. Rep. King will be releasing today the debriefing of Ambassador Joe Wilson after his return from Niger. Rep. King is asserting that Wilson's debriefing statement acknowledged that Niger had yellow cake uranium.

10:34: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-16) exploring "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." Calls Bush the "worst president our country has every suffered."

10:37: Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA-3) opening statement. He seems to be straining to speak. Calls hearing "Friday morning show trial." Questions the purpose of the hearing; perhaps it's "impeachment lite" leaving the press to print the charges without actually taking the steps.

10:51: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY-8) reviewing the lists of possible offenses that are excesses of the Executive Branch. States this is not a waste of time.

10:53: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN-6) again reflects that this is not a hearing on "impeachment." Does this take us down the road of criminalizing American politics? Rep. Pence sees no reason for impeachment. Bush not accused of treason or bribery, so that leaves high crimes and misdemeanors. Rep. Pence say Rep. Kucinich is "dead wrong." Calls Bush a "man of integrity." He has seen no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, and therefore there should be no serious consideration of impeachment of George W. Bush.

10:58: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (R-TX-18) opens by reading the preamble to the Constitution. Points out that Congress has responsibility to do fact-finding; she focuses on the issue of how the movement toward war evolved. She queried whether it was treasonous for Karl Rove not to appear as required by the Judiciary House Committee. Also questioned whether signing statements contravene the Constitution.

11:02: Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-2) criticizes past committee hearings that has made Americans less safe due to terrorism. Says the committee's hearings make the terrorists happy.

11:07: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9) Congressional newbie - 19 months. Administration is contemptuous of the Congress. Cohen describes how Monica Goodlin only would testify to executive branch wrongdoing by being granted immunity.

11:09: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA-4) Lawyer/judge

11:29: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) begins his statement. War has killed 4,127 American military personnel. Rep. Kucinich asks to enter HR. 333, 1258, and 1345 into the record; Chairman Conyers agreed. Rep. Kucinich passionately describes the decision before us is to right a very great wrong.

11:36: Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22) administration dominated by corruption and incompetence. Need to insure that future administrations work with the Congress. Rep. Hinchey outlines numerous references and warnings about AlQaeda's determination to attack the US. All of the circumstances surrounding the war need to be examined because of the damage that it has done. The situation now is one of the most difficult we have faced in history of our nation.

11:41: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC-13) Democracy dies behind closed doors. It is the responsibility of Congress to keep communication open, both Democratic and Republican. Quoting James Madison about the founders of our republic.

11:52: Walter Jones

12:00: 2nd Panel Being Seated. Panelists are:

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

Panel 2

Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York: Outlined list of crimes, recommended an impeachment action.

Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President: Notes that the US Post Office is the most trusted governmental agency, and says that's a source of concern to all. Expresses hope that this will be the first of many inquiries into the checks and balances and the separation of powers. Quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Administration's secrecy undermines the respect of the rule of law.

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: Discussing standards for impeachment. Comparing and contrasting with Clinton. Says unitary executive theory and signing statements aren't impeachable.

Bruce Fein, Statement Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda: Close to executive despotism...rule of law is the nation's civic religion...claims of war power: every square inch of world is an active battlefield where Bush can use military force...we have the sword of Damocles over our heads...

Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor: Charges that Bush is a murderer of our military personnel; would never make the charge if he didn't have evidence. Bush knew that Hussein was not an eminent threat. The unclassified report had that information deleted. The Bush Administration has gotten away with thousands upon thousands of murders. No comparison to Clinton; urges a CRIMINAL investigation. Crowd breaks out in loud applause. Chairman Conyers admonished the guests in the room not to react to the testimony.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Will try to add perspective to hearing. Doesn't want to look at "secondary charges." "Wartime presidents don't take great care of the Constitution." People want to kill us.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: Now we are less free, and less safe. This is given extremist Muslims powerful recruiting tools. World is doubting the moral basis of our war on terrorism. Recommends independent non-partisan, bi-partisan commission rather than impeachment. Thinks there's no time for a detailed investigation now. US must not adopt the techniques of our enemies.

Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace: Ben Franklin asked "What have we here?" and Ben Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." Describes the works of Veterans for Peace. No question that members of this administration have committed crimes. The question is what we do about it? Torture is illegal and ruins the value of the intelligence gathered. When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will or their political future. They were worried that were going to get hanged.

Follow-ups:

Bob Barr: The Constitutional clock is running down. Chooses constitutional inquiry over constitutional silence.

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson: Characterizes aluminium tubes as fraud, leading to war

Stephen Presser: You won't find a lack of good faith.

Bruce Fein: Permanent war is inconsistent with freedom. Bush has taken more powers that George III.

Vincent Bugliosi: Consensual sex and lying about it is worse than murder. Bush spoke about 3 ways to provoke war; one included provoking Hussein by flying war planes into Iraqi territory.

(Audience outburst, person evicted from hearing room)

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.: The idea that the President can break the law and do it secretly is a very dangerous doctrine that must be exposed and squashed.

Elliott Adams: Promotes his soon to be written book.

Chairman Conyers accepts all paperwork for entry into the record.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): Feels that witnesses missed the point that this is not an impeachment hearing. Question to Presser: Was the Clinton impeachment about lying about sex? Answer: No. There is no misconduct from this administration that would rise to an impeachable offense.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Question from Rep. Smith to Prof. Rabkin: Is there something impeachable? Did the president get us into a war to enrich oil companies? If that were true, of course, impeachment would be suitable. Why are people so bitter? Something to do with is such a charge even plausible...I mean, you have to find it demented, really. You not only have to believe that the president is a Shakespearean villain, you have to believe that all through the White House there are people who will just say, "Well, I'll just cover it up."

Rep. Smith: If we accepted the definitions of impeachable offenses given today, would other presidents have committed impeachable offenses.

Rep. Nadler: If the President lied to Congress,

#1: 8 a.m. Dennis Kucinich kicks off the day on C-Span 1 while I make my first cup of coffee.

8:07: Q: On Iraq, was the Administration lying or honestly wrong? A: Either way it's impeachable after the deaths of over 4000 U.S. soldiers

8:09: A: My presentation will focus closely on what Congress was told about Iraq... on representations that were untrue at the time they were told to Congress. Now everyone knows Iraq had no WMD's, no ties to Al Qaeda.

8:10: Q: Only months left - why push impeachment? A: Setting precedent for future president. Disastrous consequences. Central purpose was to grab Iraq's oil - our troops are there to get $5/gal gasoline from our people. What's this all about?

8:11 Q (Auburndale Republican): I voted for Bush twice and I'm sorry about it. I thank you for impeachment.

8:12: Q: Are you in touch with the Speaker? A: She's busy; I talk to her staff and tell them everything I'm doing. Q: Why does she oppose impeachment? A: Ask her. She took it off the table in 2006. But she allowed this hearing which is good. This isn't about Pelosi but about Bush. She's done her best - other Members oppose impeachment.

8:15: Q: Read Phillippe Sands' book - Bush lied on purpose. A: I wrote a report in 2006 exposing lies. We want to trust our President. There has to be accountability - Founding Fathers only gave us impeachment.

8:16: Q (Random Lake WI): High crimes - I see every day. We've called 50 million children (abortion), Waco, Saddam paying terrorists. No attacks in US for 6 years because Bush went into Iraq. A: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We went to war against innocent people.

8:18: Q (Essex CT): Bush says he got bad info but never said where he got it - who gave it? Doug Feith? Netanyahu and Sharon? After 9/11 FBI caught 5 dancing Israelis - said they were sent to "record the event." How did they know "the event"? A: Don't know about the latter, just the former. Senate Intelligence Committee report is damning to administration - they had plenty of info that the what they told Congress wasn't true.

8:21: Q: What do other Members say? Some voted for Iraq because they honestly believed Bush. There has been a steady reappraisal. Over 4,127 troops have died, tens of thousands injured, over a million innocent Iraqis, $3 trillion cost, oil prices going up - oil was a central reason why we went to Iraq - rising oil price, rising food price. Dimunition of civil liberties - all because a lie was told, that Iraq was an imminent offense. I can't think of a graver offense because of all the consequences.

8:23 Q (Anniston AL Republican): Should Democratic leadership be impeached too for stupidity? A: Congress does have responsibility - for war powers. But we never declared war. We only relied on what the President told Congress. When driving, accidental killing is manslaughter - a serious crime. If it was just a mistake, look at the gravity - 1 million dead people in Iraq. There must be accountability. You can't say "gee we made a mistake." They knew better and there must be consequences.

8:25 Q (Walton NY Democrat): What was Bush's motivation? Is there a money trail? A: Congress can't crack veil of secrecy over Cheney's meetings with oil companies - maps of Iraq - consensus that access to oil would be critical. Link between that meeting and military action later on. But just based on what's on the record we can impeach. Look at consequences - money for health care, jobs, environment, alternative energy - money's not there because money's going into war. Unless we find out the truth we'll never be free of the consequences.

8:27 Q: Cheney? A: I introduced H.Res.333 against Cheney because of his statements on nuclear weapons. I thought it would be better to remove him first. This is about accountability to history. Our Constitution is at risk. If our President is no longer accountable, we've set the stage for more wars, a government that's about empire - not the urgent problems at home.

8:29 Q (NYC Republican): I'm a former prosecutor. I blew the whistle on airport security in 1999. I made a big arrest for drug smuggling. I reported it and was threatened by my supervisor to keep my mouth shut. They wanted me to perjure. I was terminated and filed a lawsuit that has lasted 9 years. A: Call my office so I can investigate. Thank you for standing up.

8:31: This administration is getting ready to attack Iran and plunge us into a 4-front war. Very dangerous for America - for our troops in the field, for our economy. We can't sustain this - we have to look to our Constitution to rein this in. There has to be consequences for this President's insistence on passing the AUMF.

8:32 Q: Will War Powers Act be changed? A: Proposed changes would take more power from Congress. Founding Fathers were clear - power for warmaking given to Congress, not President. We need to strengthen Congress' role. This is very serious - we see consequences in Iraq.

Support the Kucinich Impeachment Hearing on Friday

Bob Fertik — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:15:29 -0400

Tell your Representatives to support impeachment by cosponsoring H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he defied Speaker Pelosi and courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich defied Speaker Pelosi again and introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.

When Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles of Impeachment, 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 our pro-impeachment allies, Speaker Pelosi finally allowed Chairman Conyers to hold a hearing this Friday. Kucinich will finally 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. Kucinich made a video to thank us for our efforts.

H.Res. 1345 focuses on Bush's ultimate crime - invading Iraq on the basis of lies. The evidence is overwhelming that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Andy Card, and other top officials deliberately manufactured those lies to "sell" an invasion whose real purpose was to gain control of Iraq's oil and establish military bases in the heart of the Middle East.

This was the agenda of the Project for a New American Century that Bush adopted after stealing the 2000 election. And it's the reason Bush and John McCain are determined to stay in Iraq forever, even though Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supports Barack Obama's plan to remove all our troops by 2010.

When Kucinich testifies on Friday, he will naturally face hostile questions from rightwing Republicans who impeached President Clinton. But Kucinich will also face hostile questions from key Democrats who oppose impeachment.

Some of these Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq: Howard Berman (CA28), Rick Boucher (VA09), Adam Schiff (CA29), Brad Sherman (CA27), and Anthony Weiner (NY09).

But most of these Democrats oppose impeachment because they are cowering in fear of a counterattack from the White House and FOX News: John Conyers (MI14), Artur Davis (AL07), Bill Delahunt (MA10), Zoe Lofgren (CA16), Jerry Nadler (NY08), Linda Sanchez (CA39), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL20), Bobby Scott (VA03), Betty Sutton (OH13), and Mel Watt (NC12).

Only a few 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, as Bush has done: 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 anti-impeachment Democrats get their way, Friday's 2-hour hearing will be the only "impeachment" hearing for this entire Congress - and then Bush will try to pardon himself and everyone else before leaving office next January, just as his father pardoned six Iran-contra criminals.

So it is crucial for all of us - now over 500,000! - to tell our Representatives today to support impeachment by cosponsoring Kucinich's H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142

And if you can do more, please make free calls to every Judiciary Democrat who opposes impeachment through CauseCaller:
http://www.causecaller.com/causes.php?c=House_Judiciary_Democrats_Impeachment
Simply enter your phone number and click the "Start Calling" button. (Click "Call me back if I accidentally hang up" in case you hang up by mistake.) In a few seconds, your phone will "magically" ring and CauseCaller will say the name of the first Representative on the list. Listen carefully for the name of each Member so you can repeat the name to the receptionist - or just say "The Representative." Don't hang up between calls - let the receptionists hang up and CauseCaller will dial the next Representative.

Note: If CauseCaller isn't working, you can call/fax this list manually:

last	first	statedist	phone-dc	fax-dc
Berman	Howard	CA28	202-225-4695	202-225-3196
Boucher	Rick	VA09	202-225-3861	202-225-0442
Conyers	John	MI14	202-225-5126	202-225-0072
Davis	Artur	AL07	202-225-2665	202-226-9567
Delahunt	William	MA10	202-225-3111	202-225-5658
Lofgren	Zoe	CA16	202-225-3072	202-225-3336
Nadler	Jerrold	NY08	202-225-5635	202-225-6923
Sanchez	Linda	CA39	202-225-6676	202-226-1012
Schiff	Adam	CA29	202-225-4176	202-225-5828
Scott	Bobby	VA03	202-225-8351	202-225-8354
Sherman	Brad	CA27	202-225-5911	202-225-5879
Sutton	Betty	OH13	202-225-3401	202-225-2266
Wasserman Schultz	Debbie	FL20	202-225-7931	202-226-2052
Watt	Melvin	NC12	202-225-1510	202-225-1512
Weiner	Anthony	NY09	202-225-6616	202-226-7253

If you want to do even more, call your favorite radio or TV talk shows and tell them how important Friday's hearings will be, and how strongly you support impeachment for whichever reasons are most important to you. Prepare your thoughts in advance so you sound informed and determined.

And if you're near Washington DC, join Veterans for Peace to lobby Congress on Thursday and hold a pro-impeachment rally on Friday:
http://www.democrats.com/node/17211

Lots more details and actions here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34943

Thanks for all you do!

Update 1: The evidence of Bush's war crimes and other impeachable offenses grows daily. Investigative reporter Jane Mayer's new book The Dark Side provides more evidence that Bush authorized torture. The British Parliament accused Bush of torture.

Yet Attorney General Mukasey told Congress he won't prosecute anyone who followed Bush's illegal torture orders. Even worse, Bush's rightwing supporters have begun a propaganda campaign for blanket pardons of everyone in the Bush administration!

Corporate Media Blackouts Continue as Iran War Looms and Impeachment Moves Ahead

dlindorff — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:55:18 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The sorry performance of the US corporate media, which blacked out
stories questioning the official line on the so-called “Iraq Threat”
until the nation was deeply mired in to pointless, bloody war in that
country, and which has almost completely ignored a three-year,
nation-wide movement calling for the impeachment of the president and
vice president, has continued.

Search far and wide, and you will find no reporting on the fact
that Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has filed a total 36 proposed articles
of impeachment against President Bush, is finally going to get to
formally present his case to the House Judiciary Committee, beginning
on July 25. Although this is not an impeachment hearing, it is putting
impeachment “on the table,” from which it has been banned for two years
by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although the House last week voted
251-166 to send Kucinich’s articles to the Judiciary Committee for
hearings, the New York Times, the Washington Post
and the nation’s television news organizations ignored this
breakthrough (which included 24 Republicans voting for the measure).
Only USA Today, at least in its online edition, even
mentioned it, with a headline saying “Pelosi cracks door open on
impeachment resolution”--and that was just a five-sentence story.

Another critically important story that is being blacked out by the
corporate media is the Bush/Cheney administration’s march towards war
with Iran. On Sunday, the London Times ran a well-researched and reported piece headlined President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran,
saying that Bush has given the “amber light” to Israel to get its air
force ready for an aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The
article, which quoted an unnamed “senior Pentagon official,” reported
that while an actual attack would require a further “green light” from
the president, the “amber light” meant planning could proceed.

The article also stated that the president was acting, “Despite the
opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America
is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of
an airborne strike on Iran.”

Surely such news of an increased possibility of the US being dragged
into yet a third war in the Middle East should at least warrant a
mention in the mainstream media. The Times of London is,
after all, hardly a fringe publication. Though owned by Rupert
Murdoch’s NewsCorp. it has a sterling reputation. If it reported on a
gossipy story about another sex scandal involving the British royal
family, you can bet the American media would be quoteing it ad nauseum.

Yet while the rest of the world is holding its collective breath
wondering if such a cataclysmic attack might be about to happen with US
sanction and assistance (Israel would be flying American-made planes in
any attack, and would have to be given clearance to fly over
US-controlled airspace in Iraq, even if it was denied access to US
airbases along the way), Americans are being left blissfully unaware of
this latest crime in the making by their war-mongering president.

This is news of major import, and it is nothing short of a shame and
a scandal that it is not being reported in the American media, which
more and more is resembling state propaganda.

Those who want better of their news purveyors should contact local
editors and demand that they stop blacking out stories like these.
Better yet, get together with friends and picket your local news
outlets!
___________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at ThisCantBeHappening.net

Impeachment Hearings: A Win is a Win

dlindorff — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:13:57 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

There are two ways to view the news that the House Judiciary
Committee will be holding a hearing on impeachable crimes by President
George W. Bush.

One view would be that this is all a charade and that after all, it
will not be a real impeachment hearing, but rather, simply a hearing
into the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration. As committee
Chair Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) put it, “We’re not doing impeachment,
but he [Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who introduced 36 articles of impeachment]
can talk about it.” Viewed that way, this is not such a big deal. Rep.
Kucinich gets to make his case that the president is committing high
crimes and misdemeanors and abuses of power and war crimes, but then
Congressional Democrats will continue to ignore all the crimes as it
has done since taking control of Congress in November 2006.

But a second way to view this is as a significant victory over the
quisling Congressional leadership, which has been ducking its
responsibility to defend the Constitution and to stand up for the rule
of law not just since November 2006, but since the inception of the
Bush/Cheney presidency.

I go for the second interpretation of events. It is clear, as was
beautifully laid out in an article published by Glenn Greenwald in
Salon magazine on July 15, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and
the rest of the Democratic Party leadership both in Congress and in the
party organization, have been blocking any action on impeachment for
fear of having their own complicity in Bush's and Cheney's crimes
revealed. As Greenwald notes, the Washington Post has
reported that Pelosi, along with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep.
Jane Harman (D-CA) were briefed on the administration's use of torture
and not only didn't object, but actively encouraged it. Rockefeller and
Harman, who at the time were minority leaders of the Senate and House
Intelligence Committees at the time, were also briefed about Bush's
order to the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless spying on
Americans. They didn't object or publicly expose this blatant violation
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment.
And of course, many, if not most of the House and Senate Democratic
leadership as well as many of the rank-and-file members of the party in
both houses backed Bush's illegal war on Iraq, and his USA PATRIOT Act.

No wonder Pelosi, even before winning control of Congress and being
elected Speaker, made it clear that under her "leadership" (if it can
be called that), impeachment of either Bush or Cheney would be "off the
table."

Looked at in this light, the fact that the House just voted 251-166
to send Kucinich's 36 articles of impeachment to the Judiciary
Committee for a hearing, that Pelosi has had to buckle, and that
Conyers has agreed to hold even an "informational" hearing on
impeachment, at which Kucinich, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), and other
impeachment advocates in the House will be able to present their case
about the president's crimes and abuses of power, constitutes a major
victory of principle over cowardice, of integrity over complicity, of
the Constitution over creeping fascism. (24 Republicans joined in
voting to send the articles to the committee.)

The fact is that public demands to hold this criminal administration
accountable for its crimes against the Constitution, the American
people and the global community, have been mounting and have reached a
point that the Democratic leadership, as terrified as it is of
impeachment and of the accompanying airing of its own complicity in
those crimes, has been forced to allow an airing of those crimes.

Now I don't expect Rep. Kucinich to bite the hand that feeds him. He
will not present the impeachment case in a way that criticizes those
leaders. Indeed, he has publicly thanked both Pelosi and Conyers for
allowing a hearing on impeachment. But it would be surprising if
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee didn't make those points.
And that's good. Even if real impeachment hearings never actually come
to pass, we will be treated, finally, to a public airing of not just
the president's and vice president's crimes, but of the Democratic
Party leadership's participation in them.

The challenge now will be for the American people and for the
wide-spread and decentralized impeachment movement, and all
progressive, anti-war and civil liberties organizations, to press
Conyers and the Judiciary Committee to take it to the next level. If
Kucinich, Wexler and others do their job, and if we all demand that the
corporate media report on the hearings, Americans will finally know the
extent of this administration's crimes against the Constitution, and
the nature of the threat it poses to democracy and freedom in America.
At that point it will be time to demand that the Judiciary Committee
move to constitute itself as a formal Impeachment Committee, with full
power to subpoena and demand the appearance of witnesses in a real
impeachment hearing.

The hour is getting late, but there is still time to bring this criminal administration to justice.

American voters may forgive leaders like Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller
and others for failing to stand up to Bush and Cheney if their names
get dragged through the mud of an impeachment hearing, but the American
people will never forgive them or the rest of the Congress if it allows
these two men to leave office next January without tar and feathers on
their backs and a federal grand jury on their cases.

Call your representative today and every day (at 202-224-3121) and demand that he or she co-sponsor some or all of Rep. Kucinich's 36 bills of impeachment, and join the call for real impeachment hearings. Send them an email. And sign the petition calling for impeachment hearings.

We are witnessing a backdown by the House leadership. It's time to push harder. Impeachment hearings, and impeachment itself, can happen!
____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback). His work is available at ThisCantBeHappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34806';
digg_title = "Impeachment Hearings: A Win is a Win";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n There are two ways to view the news that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on impeachable crimes by President George W. Bush.\r\n\r\n One view would be that this is all a charade and that after all, it will not be a real impeachment hearing, but rather, simply a hearing into the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration. As committee Chair Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) put it, “We’re not doing impeachment, but he [Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who introduced 36 articles of impeachment] can talk about it.” Viewed that way, this is not such a big deal. Rep. Kucinich gets to make his case that the president is committing high crimes and misdemeanors and abuses of power and war crimes, but then Congressional Democrats will continue to ignore all the crimes as it has done since taking control of Congress in November 2006.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Impeachment of Bush & Cheney/Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Roger Remick — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:50:25 -0400

To Democrats.com; Although I was PLEASED! to hear that Dennis Kucinich,read these 35 articles of Impeachment ON the House of Representatives Floor, I UNFORTUNATELY, have the following PROBLEM,...It is; Dennis Kucinich, is looked upon by a LOT of Democrats,and ALL Republicans,as a "NUT!!" and a "Troublemaker"!! If,...I repeat IF!, YOU,Democrats.com,..want your "Impeachment" message to be taken >SERIOUSLY!!< I advise the following; GET ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN or SENATOR to DELIVER YOUR(Democtrats.com & the American People's) MESSAGE,...O.K.??!!

House Sends Impeachment to John Conyers

Bob Fertik — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:47:06 -0400

By a bipartisan vote of 251-166, the full House of Representatives sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment to the Judiciary Committee.

That means Chairman John Conyers now has the power to decide whether to hold impeachment hearings - or not.

Incredibly, 24 Republicans voted with 227 Democrats; the 166 no votes came exclusively from Republicans.

So what will Conyers do? After the Downing Street Memo was published on May 1, 2005, Democrats.com worked closely with Conyers to hold the famous basement hearings featuring Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and John Bonifaz. In August 2006, Conyers published all of the evidence of Bush's crimes in The Constitution in Crisis. Many of us believed he would begin impeachment proceedings if Democrats won the House, which they did that November.

But in the spring of 2006, Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment "off the table." And when Democrats took control and Conyers was sworn in as Judiciary Chairman, he fell firmly into line behind the Speaker. (Conyers insists Pelosi did not threaten to deny him the Chairmanship.)

Since 2005, Conyers has received millions of impeachment petitions. Hundreds if not thousands of activists have spoken to him personally. But he remains adamantly opposed to hearings, for one simple reason: he fears it will hurt the Democratic candidate for President (now Barack Obama) in November.

Of course there isn't one scintilla of evidence to support Conyers' fear. It is based entirely on the 1998 election, when Newt Gingrich turned the Starr Report (published online on September 9) into a campaign issue but lost a small number of seats by overplaying the issue in TV ads. Despite those small losses, Republicans held the majority and voted to impeach Clinton six weeks after the election, on December 19. And two years later, despite a massively unpopular impeachment, Republican George Bush got close enough to Al Gore to steal the election. And one reason it was close was that Democrats believed impeachment made Clinton too "toxic" to campaign even in Arkansas, which would have put Gore over the top in the Electoral College even without Florida.

And there is no comparison between impeaching Clinton for consensual sex and impeaching Bush for 35 High Crimes, including a disastrous war of aggression based on lies. And the difference is reflected in polls - only 26% of Americans wanted to impeach Clinton in 1998, while 43% of Americans wanted to impeach Bush in our last poll on July 8, 2007. (The Corporate Media adamantly refuses to ask about impeachment in their own polls. You can email all the pollsters here.)

So the election fear that has paralyzed Conyers and the Democrats isn't just baseless, it's idiotic. Bush's polls are now lower than Richard Nixon's ever were. The American people are sick of Bush and can't wait to get rid of him.

Here at Democrats.com, we will continue to do everything we can to persuade Conyers and every other House Democrat to support impeachment. To be effective, we need your support - emails, calls, and especially local organizing.

Now that Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment are before the House Judiciary Committee, the battle is just beginning. And Kucinich feels exactly the same way:

"Leadership wants to bury it, but this is one resolution that will be coming back from the dead," Kucinich told Capitol Briefing. "Thirty days from now, if there is no action, I will be bringing the resolution up again, and I won't be the only one reading it."

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has not commented on whether he plans to hold hearings, and Kucinich said he would meet with Conyers this week to present him with documentation for his charges against Bush. But if there is no further action, Kucinich said, "We'll come back and many of us will be reading this [on the House floor], and we'll come back with 60 articles, not 35."

Amen!!!

Impeachment

billybatson — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:56:45 -0400

I stayed up with Rep Kucinich for his entire reading into the record. I am so delighted to see that we have such quality of courage in the Congress. He's taken a giant step to restore its credibility.

But, I admit to being totally unknowledgable regarding the process of impeachment at this point. I know it begins in the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate, but where to we go from here with his presentment? I will feel more empowered if we can get the details or appropriate links to get this information.

Now, in light of the Democrat's surge to the finish line to sweep the board, it will be interesting to see just who among our Congressmen and women will step up to the plate and give their support. It is high time for them to show their true colors and the quality of their mettle.