Impeach.TV

Paris Says No Pardons!

Bob Fertik — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:31:17 -0400

For his final official act, Bush plans to pardon himself and everyone in his administration for all of their crimes. Can Paris stop him? Sign our petition and spread the word!

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.

Dennis Kucinich: Thanks to You, Impeachment Will Be Heard on Friday

davidswanson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:12:05 -0400

Nadler Cites Bush's Impeachable Offenses and War Crimes but Rejects Impeachment

Bob Fertik — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:03:11 -0400

On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared George Bush guilty of "impeachable offenses" and "some people" in his Administration with "war crimes."

Nevertheless, Nadler insisted Bush should not be impeached because it would "distort the presidential campaign." Watch it:

Here's the transcript:

I think as a matter of justice that if we had a just system and it weren't overly political, the President probably would be impeached. I think he has committed impeachable offenses.

But first of all, it's not up to me as to whether we should impeach the President, it's up to the House as a whole and up to the leadership of the House to allow such a proceeding to be brought.

As a practical matter at this point in the game with 6 months left in the Administration, it would never happen, and it's probably not the best idea to start a full impeachment hearing at this point which would simply take all the attention away from and distort the presidential campaign.

In my view, if we're going to restore the United States as a nation of laws, if we're going to see some of these hideous and illegal practices... stop, the most important thing right now is to elect Barack Obama as President so we can get a decent honest man in office again and an Administration that begins to obey the law.

And then I would hope to see prosecutions - criminal prosecutions - of some people in the Bush Administration who have clearly committed war crimes because I think it's very important that people be held accountable so these crimes do not set precedents for the...

Nadler's position is politically, morally, and legally bankrupt. The 2008 "presidential campaign" began shortly after the 2004 election, and became a full-fledged media obsession immediately after the 2006 election. According to Nadler's logic, a President could never be impeached - even if he is a war criminal - because there is always a Presidential election underway.

As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler has direct jurisdiction over Bush's impeachable offenses and war crimes. His failure to enforce the Constitution is a complete betrayal of his oath of office, which requires him to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Fortunately Nadler is being held accountable for betraying his oath of office by Adam Sullivan, a passionate impeachment supporter who is challenging Nadler in a Democratic primary on September 9. Adam writes,

When my congressman tells me that he will not co-sponsor an impeachment resolution against a reckless and criminal vice president, I submit to you that he has broken faith with the people he is meant to serve, and violated his sworn oath to the Constitution. He has chosen to adhere to the wishes of his party leaders in the name of some short-sighted political “wisdom.”

I will never break an oath to protect the Constitution, no matter the perceived cost to a political agenda. The cost to our country, our republic, and to each individual citizen is too great to bear. We are citizens of the United States of America. We deserve better.

If you believe Bush should be impeached, please volunteer or contribute to Adam Sullivan's campaign.

Update 1: When talking to impeachment activists, Nadler sings a different tune:

Nadler told us the concern was that the attack dog Republicans (not all) would characterize this as "retribution for the Clinton impeachment. And the media would go along with it."

Sue4theBillofRights is spot-on in response:

Is that all life is? To tremble in fear at what attacks the other party might make on you? You are better than that, Congressman. We know you are.

Bush impeachment debate focuses on subpoenas

davidswanson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:30:33 -0400

McClellan Strengthens Wexler's Case for Impeaching Cheney

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:47:53 -0400

When Scott McClellan testified before the Judiciary Committee on Friday, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) only got 5 minutes. But he used it brilliantly as you can see.

Wexler wants to know who told Scooter Libby to leak Plame's identity, and narrows the suspects down to Bush and Cheney. If McClellan believes Bush was innocent, then that leaves Cheney.

Could there be a more impeachable offense than willfully exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative - endangering her life, the lives of her sources, and her entire anti-WMD program - as a way to "get" her husband for telling the truth about Bush's pre-war lies?

You go, Wexler!

The Declaration of Independence as a Tool of Impeachment

Jesai — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:20:38 -0400

Hi Folks: June 18th, 2008

We are involved in public readings/performances of the Declaration of Independence which highlights the similarity between King George and the current administration of the US. Looking for as many people as possible to read/record/perform/present such presentations. Live readings are happening in NYC now through the Society for Ethical Culture: Ethical Communications Committee and Social Service Board.

When people hear it they say "Is that really what's in it?" "Isn't that happening now with our own government.?"

Impeachment Cosponsors Wanted!

Bob Fertik — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:55:35 -0400

Cosponsors

FL19: Robert Wexler
CA06: Lynn Woolsey
CA09: Barbara Lee
NY22: Maurice Hinchey
WI02: Tammy Baldwin
CA17: Sam Farr
NY10: Ed Towns
WA07: Jim McDermott
MN05: Keith Ellison
TX18: Sheila Jackson-Lee
CA51: Bob Filner

Candidates

CA08: Cindy Sheehan
(indy v. Nancy Pelosi)
CA24: Mary Pallant
MA01: Bob Feuer
(primary John Olver)
NY08: Adam Sullivan
(primary Jerry Nadler)
WA06: Paul Richmond
(primary Norm Dicks)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment, H.Res. 1258, needs Cosponsors so we can pressure Speaker Pelosi and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers into starting impeachment hearings. (We will update the list on the right as we learn of new cosponsors.)

You can play a crucial role in persuading your Representative to be a cosponsor!

Email your Representatives to support Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment
Call your Rep. at 202-224-3121
Call your favorite talk shows and tell everyone who supports impeachment to sign the petition at Democrats.com
Login and click local to meet your neighbors and plan local lobbying actions:
- organize a "Honk To Impeach" event
- turn out and ask questions at community events your Representative will be attending
- pass resolutions by Democratic clubs, local governments, unions, civic and veterans' groups, etc.
- ask community leaders to speak out

Of course most incumbent Democrats and all Republicans have turned a deaf ear to all of our lobbying. So we're also active in House races, encouraging Democratic challengers to endorse H.Res. 1258, and we are listing them above. (We also listed independent Cindy Sheehan because Speaker Pelosi abused the unique power as Speaker by declaring impeachment "off the table," even though it's not her table, but ours!)

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!!!

Comparison of Impeachment Stories Reveals the Intellectual Death of the Washington Post

Bob Fertik — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:16:08 -0400

Here is today's pathetic page 2 Pentagon Post article about impeachment by cub reporter Ben Pershing. The article almost completely ignores the substance of Kucinich's 35 Articles, and instead is infused with Pershing's attitude towards Kucinich, which can be described in one word: loser.

Kucinich Forces Vote On Bush's Impeachment

Having failed in efforts to impeach Vice President Cheney, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will probably force a vote today.

Kucinich's impeachment measure accuses Bush of taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses; he introduced it as a "privileged resolution," which requires the House to take it up within two legislative days. Any lawmaker may offer a privileged resolution, but it is usually done only by party leaders.

Kucinich, upon introducing his articles of impeachment Monday evening, insisted on reading the resolution into the Congressional Record, a process that took nearly five hours. He finished reading it late yesterday after the close of legislative business.

As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested yesterday that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time.

Kucinich tried a similar maneuver last November, bringing an impeachment measure against Cheney to the floor as a privileged resolution. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Of course the Washington Post gained fame for its coverage of the impeachment of Richard Nixon. So let's compare the introduction of Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. Here is a summary compiled by Barbara Ellis in her excellent white paper on the Nixon Flooding Plan:

On June 12, 1973, Rep. Pete Stark - who is still in Congress! - introduced the first resolution for an impeachment investigation, H.Res. 431. On July 31, Rep. Father Drinan introduced the first actual Article of Impeachment, H.Res. 513. But Drinan's resolution had 0 co-sponsors. The first Article of Impeachment to get a co-sponsor was introduced on October 24, 1973 by Bella Abzug (H.Res. 650), which ultimately had 16 co-sponsors.

To measure the intellectual death of the Washington Post, here is Jules Witcover's page 1 article from October 21, 1973, three days before Abzug's resolution was introduced.

Pressure for Impeachment Mounting

Demands for the impeachment of President Nixon mounted swiftly last night in the wake of his firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliott L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus.

Within the White House, sources reported an immediate reaction of "shock" among presidential aides to Mr. Nixon's action and an expectation that it was now inevitable that Congress would move to impeach him.

Members of the House and Senate -- from both parties -- expressed dismay at the President's moves. One member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerome R. Waldie (D-Calif.), said flatly that he will introduce an impeachment resolution when the House reconvenes, probably Tuesday. So did Rep. Ogden R. Reid (D-N.Y.), a one-time Republican.

Waldie charged that Mr. Nixon "in one wild move has removed the few remaining men of demonstrable integrity in the administration."

The action, he said, leaves no doubt that release of the Watergate tapes in Mr. Nixon's possession "would prove the President's complicity in the crime of obstructing justice and would make him impeachable."

The President would rather withhold the tapes and make the matter of impeachment a test of "the guts of the members of Congress, which he considers a better bet," Waldie said.

Three of the most prestigious Democrats in the Senate -- Stuart Symington of Missouri, Edmund S. Muskie of Maine and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- all indicated their belief that Mr. Nixon's actions made impeachment proceedings more likely.

Muskie said the President's actions "are of such gravity and consequence to our form of government" that the House should consider impeachment proceedings. "What the President has done," he said, "threatens to destroy our system of law. It smacks of dictatorship. Unless Congress responds in the only way provided in the Constitution for resisting such a usurpation of authority, we endanger our country's future."

Kennedy called the firing of Cox "a reckless act of desperation by a President who is afraid of the Supreme Court, who has no respect for law and no regard for men of conscience.

"It is obvious," he said, "that Mr. Nixon is bent on maintaining the Watergate cover-up at any cost. The burden is now on Congress and the courts to nullify this historic insult to the rule of law and to the nation's system of justice."

Symington charged that the President "has now violated his solemn obligation to the Senate" on Richardson's independence, and said "there is no question that whatever the chances for impeachment were before, they have been materially increased."

Republicans also saw impeachment down the road for Mr. Nixon. Rep. John B. Anderson (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, said "the President has precipitated a constitutional crisis" and he predicted impeachment resolutions would be introduced this week.

Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) said, "This act on the part of the President, under the circumstances, is sufficient evidence which the House of Representatives should consider to begin impeachment proceedings."

Rep. John N. Erlenhorn (R-Ill.), a moderate, said he, too, expected impeachment proceedings and predicted that the vote for removing Mr. Nixon "will be significant," but he would not say whether he thought it would succeed. He called the President "ill-advised" for his action yesterday, and for withholding the tapes.

Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) in a telephone interview from Oregon, said, "It seems to me the President is almost intent on committing political hara-kiri."

While saying he is still hopeful that "we can resolve this short of impeachment," Hatfield said the President's action "invites far more serious consideration" to taking that step than before.

Hatfield also said the President's actions would seem to put "in jeopardy" his nomination of Rep. Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President, succeeding the resigned Spiro T. Agnew.

The Oregon Republican noted that several Democrats had indicated they wanted to withhold action on Ford's nomination pending release of the White House tapes by Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jerry Ford held hostage," he said.

Ford was one of the few voices heard last night in support of Mr. Nixon's actions. "The President had no other choice, after Cox -- who was, after all, a subordinate -- refused to accept the compromise solution to the tapes issue," he said.

Agreeing with Ford was Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.). "I don't know what other choice the President had" he said. "It's a question of who's the President -- Nixon or Cox." Dole said whether impeachment proceedings start depends on what each man says and the reaction on Capitol Hill to the President's proposed compromise on the tapes, in which he would have provided a summary of the contents, and let Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.) listen to the tapes for verification.

One House member, Rep. Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.), national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, said the President left the House "no choice but to proceed with impeachment," and he proposed that the House hire Cox as its special counsel to explore grounds to impeach Mr. Nixon.

Cox himself in his statement of the President's action against him implied that the next proper step was impeachment. "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people," he said.

Until last night, Congress had appeared to be extremely reluctant to even consider the impeachment step seriously. But there had been growing signals that if the President eventually bucked the judiciary branch on the issue of the White House tapes, it could provide the catalyst for action.

In discharging Cox and closing down his special Watergate investigation, the President appears to have averted that direct confrontation. But in so doing, he appears at the same time to have assured another, more direct one with Congress on the ultimate question: whether Watergate and its attendant machinations will drive him from the White House.

Of course the "underlying crime" of Watergate was a "second-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel by White House operatives.

The famous Watergate investigation by WaPo's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein tried to figure out who the White House - authorized the break-in. And Congress tried to go beyond the journalistic efforts of "WoodStein" by using its subpoena power to examine evidence of Nixon's personal involvement - including the famous Oval Office tapes whose existence was dramatically revealed in Congressional testimony by Alexander Butterworth.

Intellectually, it's impossible to compare the "second-rate burglary" with the innumerable High Crimes of the Bush Administration, only 35 of which are documented in Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment.

The closest analogy is the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, but the seriousness of that crime eclipses the seriousness of the "second-rate burglary."

And Nixon did not participate in the decision to break in to the Watergate, while Bush probably did participate in the decision to expose Valerie Plame, according to the extraordinary investigative blogging of "emptywheel" (a.k.a. Marcy Wheeler), who deserves a Pulitzer infinitely more than "WoodStein."

According to Marcy, the first evidence of Bush's involvement was the note Scooter Libby wrote to himself on June 9, 2003, one month before Libby, Rove, and their gang quietly outed Plame.

Libby told the Grand Jury he couldn't remember how he learned P (President Bush) was interested in Nicholas Kristof's NY Times op ed about an unnamed former ambassador's trip to Niger, which was published three days earlier.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

There's a pretty strong clue here - the mention of the "vice president's office," which set off alarm bells there - and probably reached P himself, although Libby wouldn't admit it to the Grand Jury. (Libby, as we know, was convicted of lying to that Grand Jury.)

And here is the most recent "dot" Marcy connected:

Scottie McC's denial--which is not one, not by a long shot--only addresses the method of the leak, the fact that Scooter and Shooter leaked via the old A1 cut-out using Judy Judy Judy. After raising the question of whether or not Bush had authorized the content that Valerie was covert ... Scottie McC said nothing.

In Watergate terminology, I'd call that a "non-denial non-denial."

So why is the Pentagon Post so contemptuous of the first serious effort to impeach George Bush for the outing of Valerie Plame - and 34 other indisputable High Crimes?

Because the Post, like the rest of the Corporate Media, has become fatally corrupt - and intellectually dead.