Kucinich referendum to impeach passes to the judiciary.

[chknltl]

Source: C-Span

The House: 251 voted yes, 156 voted no.
On to the judiciary!

No link yet.

[Solly Mack]

1. Where it will languish and die?

[ClassWarrior]

3. Almost certainly -- IF we don't bother to make a two-minute phone call.

NGU.

[mdmc]

5. Probably

but perhaps there will be an outcry for accountability from the people.

Someone will be held accountable. Perhaps the BFEE, perhaps the enabling triangulators.

But I bet someone is held accountable.

[DutchLiberal]

90. I bet no one will ever be held accountable.

In this case, being pessimistic is being realistic.

[darue]

116. like hell it will. CALL THEM NOW n/t

[L. Coyote]

67. Yes, just like Nixon's impeachment for far less serious offenses!!

Or Clinton's!!

Yes, that's what happens to the most serious matter before Congress :sarcasm:

[HiddenCSLib]

151. Nixon was not impeached

He resigned.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

160. He resigned because impeachment had been voted for so as to avoid a trial n/t

[RoyGBiv]

165. More precisely ...

He resigned because three articles of impeachment had been approved by the judiciary committee, and members of his own party, notably including Barry Goldwater, convinced him to resign.

The so-called Saturday Night Massacre was likely the straw that broke his support in Congress.

[tavalon]

108. Yes, but die slowly

as opposed to tabled, where it would die rather rapidly. If anyone thought this was going anywhere better than the Judiciary Committee, they were smoking the good stuff. But this is the better of the two options. And, it got read into the record. Twice!

[katty]

129. yup, exactly...still glad he did it

[Prophet 451]

150. Yep, but...

...it does mean it can be pulled out instantly if Chimpy does something really insane like start bombing Iran.

[jus_the_facts]

2. at least it got on gov't record....regardless of the outcome...

...there is PROOF that fucktarded * is a criminal. :thumbsup:

[ejbr]

27. Amen to that!

Take THAT off the table Pelosi, you enabling piece of shit!

[bean fidhleir]

4. We need to know who voted to sink it. Bet they're the usual suspects. (nt)

[frogcycle]

8. 235 dems, 199 pugs

so a few pugs voted aye

[mcg]

35. 24 republicans vote aye, 166 pugs vote nay, 0 dems voted nay,

227 dems vote aye, 7 dem. and 9 rep. no votes
I don't think we can assume the reasons for the no votes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-401

[kay1864]

56. Details at post #36 below

If you happen to be in a repuke district, see if yours is there, and win a prize! :P

[benny05]

102. My Rethug rep vfoted aye

He must be concerned about his job.

[Patchuli]

174. How about if my Blue Dog voted Yea!

That's an accomplishment too and I've already written Mr. Thompson to thank him! Usually, I write him to yell at him. He's done an about-face from a year ago when in a Townhall meeting he basically echoed Pelosi's crap. Yeahhhhh!!!

[annabanana]

68. huh... Peter Fucking King voted "Aye". . . He must be feeling some

heat.. but I sure as hell don't know from where.. (besides me of course)

[Divine Discontent]

70. he probably thinks it will hurt the dems

:shrug:



New Pro-Obama & Anti-Bush/McSame Items
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[npincus]

120. no SHIT!!!

shocking... last time I checked his head was so far up 'King of Florida" Giuliani's ass he couldn't see daylight.

[whistle]

141. Their leader can do no wrong even when his actions are criminal

:wtf:

How can the country allow these repukes to circulate in polite society?

[frickaline]

6. this will never work, but it is nice that at least someone is trying.

I hate it when the one party system trumps the two party system. x(

[FightingIrish]

7. If it dies there so will some careers.

Do the Democrats in congress realize how lame they look investigating like hell and then shrinking from actually doing anything?

[tavalon]

111. No, they do not

It is our power that they don't see. We will have to fire a few of them for them to get a clue. Call it a clue by four.

[Freddie Stubbs]

121. How many careers died because of the Cheney impeachment bill being stuck in committee?

:shrug:

[chknltl]

9. To me these 2 items are important:

This becomes a matter of record. Those numerous impeachable crimes committed, although alleged at this point are now compiled and officially recorded into the House records. How could this NOT be a good thing?

Secondly, we will shortly have access to the records on who voted how. I have been e-mailing my reps, in this case Congressman Norm Dicks. I informed him that his support or non-support would be noted by this voter. I further let him know that the House has an opportunity to set a precedent with this, one that discourages future hostile takeovers of our government which imo is what the bush crime family has done. America has the single-most powerful military this world has ever seen and we have likely the greatest nuclear arsenal the world has ever seen...in both cases our congress is in the position of guarding this from being mis-used by an out of control President. (Think Iraq and Iran). Americans must never let this happen again! Our Congress is in the position RIGHT NOW to do something quite good for our country and her future.

[But....]

43. Hell yes.

Any heat that we can put on congress!:bounce:

[Voice for Peace]

58. well said, thanks.

My congressperson, Van Hollen, voted yea. I mean "Yay!"

[JBShakes]

10. Isn't "on to the judiciary"...

A little bit like "on to the room where we'll never see it again"?

*sigh*

Oh well, there's always a war crimes tribunal at the Hague, I guess. The trick now is to figure out how to get Chimpy & Darth out of the country long enough to be arrested & tried - Darth will be tough, but I bet if we told Chimpy that Belgium was giving away free motorboats, we'd have him in about 20 minutes.

[SergeyDovlatov]

21. That is how Nixon and Clinton were impeached by the house

First you send to the committee, it issues its report and then recommend the motion for a floor vote in the house.

[jimlup]

47. not important but...

Nixon was never "impeached". He resigned when it became inevitable and conviction in the Senate appeared certain but he was never formally impeached.

[L. Coyote]

73. First, a few Republicans turned against "their" President, then a few more, then ....

You just saw the first batch turn against their Resident.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. It is also how Cheney wasn't impeached

[Iggo]

33. Der Chimpster is moving to Paraguay.

Unless McSame gets elected. Then it'll be pre-emptive Nixonian pardons for everyone!

Yay!

[JPZenger]

42. That is a great story, but is just a rumor

I have not been able to find any reliable confirmation that the Bush cabal has actually bought land in Paraquay to escape criminal charges. It still makes for a great story though.

[Iggo]

65. Reliable confirmation...

....for his MOTIVES for buying the land could only come from the chimp, himself. My guess is he likes having control of overpriced liquids, Texas oil man that he is.

Still, it'd make a great rabbit hole. And he wouldn't be the first war criminal to bolt to South America, now would he?

[jaybeat]

104. Actually, Bush Jr., Bush Sr. and Rev. Moon have adjacent mega-parcels

Over the largest aquifer in the world...

Brother Neil and daughter Jenna have both visited there recently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3006421

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2711278

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/28/2544/07385

http://wonkette.com/208549/we-hate-to-bring-up-the-nazis-but-they-fled-to-south-america-too

(the last one has links to all kinds of sources in South America, in case DU, kos and wonkette don't count as "reliable" enough for you)

[BearSquirrel2]

110. That's because they're going to Dubai ...

If they moved overseas, it would be to a private island in Dubai where they're desperate to replace their dwindling oil reserves with corrupt westerners and banking fraud.

[Wizard777]

161. Ask Noriega how well having your own country works on that front.

A few thousand acres is nothing.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Depends. Wexler is on the Judiciary and he's a co-sponsor.

[Freddie Stubbs]

123. He is also a cosponsor of the Cheney impeachment bill. How has that worked out?

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

131. At least as well as the time table for withdrawl, the CHIP bill, the global warming bill,

all of which were pushed by the House and Senate Leadership.

It proves that Kucinich is just as effective as Pelosi and Reid at getting laws enacted, I guess.

I bet you thought Pelosi, Reid, and all the Dems were just wasting our time with the CHIP bill, but I didn't. Ditto for the Iraq time table, the global warming bill, and the Articles of Impeachment for both bush and Chaney.

I think the fact this stuff is introduced is better than if it isn't.

I would be happier if the House and Senate Leadership would waste as much time on a failed impeachment as they are willing to waste on failed CHIP, failed global warming, and failed troop withdrawal time tables though. It would be a lot more honest. And honesty is good for winning elections.

[DrZeeLit]

55. I thought the US declined to be involved in Hague tribunals. Might someone illuminate?

I thought (this getting old sucks... can't exactly remember) that we opted out of the courts just so no American soldiers would be tried for war crimes.

Is that just my faulty memory?
Might someone know the whole story?

Thank you.

[Iggo]

66. I bet the Nazis...

...tried to beg out of the Nuremburg trials, too.

:rofl:

[DrZeeLit]

76. Oh, here's article re: Bush told the UN that the US would ignore the International Criminal Court.

Dateline: 05/07/02

Through a letter to the U.N., the Bush administration has reserved the right of the U.S. to ignore decisions and orders issued by the International Criminal Court. The action effectively neutralizes President Clinton's signature to the treaty creating the court.

Established under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, the court was established to serve as an ad hoc world tribunal responsible for prosecuting war crimes and "crimes against humanity," when national criminal justice systems are "unwilling or unable to act."

While human rights organizations have expressed outrage over President Bush's action, former President Clinton, who signed the treaty on behalf of the U.S. on Dec. 31, 2000, stated at the time that he did not intend to sending the pact to the Senate for official ratification. Clinton stated that he agreed to sign the treaty only to allow the U.S. to participate in discussions on the court's structure and jurisdiction.

Both former President Clinton and President Bush expressed reservations that the treaty could lead to politically-motivated prosecution of U.S. government leaders or military personnel.

While Canada and all but one of the 15 nations of the European Union have ratified the treaty since 1998, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues Pierre-Richard Prosper is quoted in an Associated Press article as stating that President Bush's action makes it clear to the U.N. that, "we are not going to be a party to the process."

"It frees us from some of the obligations that are incurred by signature. When you sign, you have an obligation not to take actions that would defeat the object or purpose of the treaty," said Prosper.

By not ratifying the treaty, explained Prosper, the U.S. can now take actions such as rejecting extradition requests by the International Court, choosing instead to send suspects back to their home country to stand trial.

Prosper stated that the U.S. preferred to place its trust in limited international tribunals created to deal with specific conflicts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Since President Clinton signed it in 2000, objections to the treaty have come from Republican Senators who contend that it could allow the International Court to claim jurisdiction over all U.S. military personnel serving overseas. During negotiations on the treaty, the U.S. failed to obtain adequate assurances that U.S. soldiers abroad would not be tried before the International Court.

According to the Associated Press, at least 24 human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights and the Rainbow Push Coalition have criticized President Bush's decision to neutralize the U.S.' signature of the treaty.

"It undermines American leadership and credibility at the worst possible time," stated the coalition of organizations in a joint-statement. "This rash action signals to the world that America is turning its back on decades of U.S. leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

[L. Coyote]

75. That's like saying the Nazis decided not to participate in the Nuremberg trials ...

The World Court does not work that way. You can't commit war crimes and then say, "Sorry, I'm not going to participate."

There are some treaties the US has not signed or ratified, and that may be the basis.

[DrZeeLit]

78. The article I posted (above) says Clinton agreed. Bush opted out.

Yes, that does seem rather odd.

Having lied to get into the war, perhaps (duh) BushCo was covering their six o'clock well in advance.

[DutchLiberal]

91. Yes, and what followed is the 'The Hague Invasion Act'...

Which means your military can land on our beaches and invade us in case an American soldier is on trial at The Hague.

[tavalon]

114. Yep,

it is now a matter of record in the Congressional record. Hopefully, that will be useful in the war crimes tribunals. I hope the world has the guts we lack.

[Imagevision]

185. K&R!

[ComtesseDeSpair]

11. That Many?

How sad is it that I'm totally surprised that 251 actually voted yes? I expect nothing from Congress - which is exactly what I get.

[Zachstar]

12. This is good news.

First because it is now going big on the net which is landing a SERIOUS blow to McCain because of his Bush support.

2nd This is the first step towards sending the Bush crime family to a warcrimes trial. With possible arrest before that due to actions defying the law at home. Already there is counties that have issued a warrant for his arrest and at this rate hopefully states will.

Third this is america standing up yet again. The story of the marathon reading of articles of impeachment will be viewed as one of the great standing up moments on the early 21st century.

So Bush/McCain PISS YOUR FUCKING PANTS!!! You will LOSE to HISTORY!!

[tavalon]

115. Yeah! I saw it on the front of all the newspapers and on all the 24 hour networks!

Well, no, actually, I didn't. Actually, I'm a compulsive liar. Sorry. Nevermind.

You are right about history though.

[Imagevision]

137. K&R!

[Dangerously Amused]

13. Hoping against hope for impeachment...

[eagleswing963]

15. He'll never be impeached!!

But nice to see 251 Reps think he should!!!

Got to see some positive in this!!

[frog92969]

14. Official vote count here-

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-401

[Beaverhausen]

17. thanks. My rep voted AYE

FWIW

[TBF]

24. Mine did as well - thank you Nick Lawson :) He is such an improvement over Tom Delay.

[But....]

45. My voted no...

Kuhl got to go.:argh:

[NYC Liberal]

25. So did mine!

[martymar64]

103. Mine too!

Way to go, Lloyd Doggett!

[eagleswing963]

18. I mean he will not get impeached!!

Since there are only 50 people in ths Senate who will vote on it!

Yeah right, Lieberman (R-Conn. lets tell it like it is!!)would never vote for this!!

[Dr.Phool]

31. He can get impeached. Maybe not CONVICTED.

[galaxy21]

23. ron paul voted yes which I thought was interesting

And will likely alienate his base even further from Mccain/Bush.

[frog92969]

26. My repug voted yes as well

[pokercat999]

61. Ron Paul's base should be Conservative/libertarian if they

understand Paul. They should want to impeach Bush as much as Dem's want to.

[kay1864]

36. Thanks! Here's the "out of the norm" results:

Dems who voted Nay:
None

Reps who voted Aye:
CA-26 Dreier, David
CT-4 Shays, Christopher
DE-0 Castle, Michael
FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln
FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario
IL-15 Johnson, Timothy
IL-16 Manzullo, Donald
IL-19 Shimkus, John
MD-1 Gilchrest, Wayne
MN-3 Ramstad, James
NC-3 Jones, Walter
NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney
NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank
NM-1 Wilson, Heather
NY-13 Fossella, Vito
NY-3 King, Peter
OH-14 LaTourette, Steven
OH-3 Turner, Michael
PA-18 Murphy, Tim
TX-14 Paul, Ronald
TX-4 Hall, Ralph
TX-8 Brady, Kevin
VA-10 Wolf, Frank
WA-8 Reichert, Dave

No Vote:
AZ-6 Flake, Jeff
CO-6 Tancredo, Thomas
IL-1 Rush, Bobby
IA-1 Braley, Bruce
IA-2 Loebsack, David
IA-4 Latham, Thomas
IA-5 King, Steve
LA-4 McCrery, James
MO-9 Hulshof, Kenny
NJ-8 Pascrell, William
NY-20 Gillibrand, Kirsten
TN-9 Cohen, Steve
TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy
TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon
TX-32 Sessions, Peter
VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert

[NM Independent]

98. HOLY HELL!!!

Heather Wilson voted Aye?!?!

No freaking way. Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

[puebloknot]

109. WTF!?!?!? Scraping my jaw up off the Saltillo, too. We're having wild winds...

...in Santa Fe. Something freaky is definitely going on.

[frog92969]

113. self delete

confusion led to faulty info

[chknltl]

117. Dave Reichert, R. Wa.

Known for his tireless research and aid in the eventual capture of the infamous Green River Murderer. He ran a close race against the Democratic challenger Darcy Burner last go around. She pinned him as a bush enabler, something he fought hard against. He voted AYE to send this to the Judiciary. Darcy Burner is having another go at his seat...hmmmm this could be interesting watching Reichert run to the center-left trying to defend his seat in the House. I of course am pulling for Darcy Burner and I suspect Reichert may have an even tougher race against her this time. I'll predict Darcy Burner wins it this time by a small margin.

[Matteon]

139. I'm legitemately impressed

that 24 Republicans voted in favor of the resolution. Yes, it will ultimately die almost certainly in committee, but the fact that Kucinich got every Dem and 24 Rep's to vote for it presents serious progress, and is a reason for a bit of optimism. Hats off to the Rep's who crossed the aisle on this one.

[lovuian]

143. Anybody who voted against impeachment would be looking

like a traitor to this country and constitution

the Republican Party is on self destruct mode after Bush I don't think there will be any republican party left

[dana_b]

144. So Pelosi, as speaker, doesn't vote?

Sorry, I'm ignorant on that.

I am glad that my rep, Anna Eshoo, voted "Aye". :-)

[kay1864]

157. Found this on wikipedia:

As a member of the House, the Speaker is entitled to participate in debate and to vote. By custom, however, he or she does so only in exceptional circumstances. Normally, the Speaker votes only when his or her vote would be decisive, and on matters of great importance (such as constitutional amendments).

[madrchsod]

154. bobby rush did not vote

i think he is ill

[Pab Sungenis]

172. Fuck! LoBiondo?

He must really be afraid of the no name we put up against him this year.

[TrogL]

77. Why do they list religion on peoples bio's?

One of the Repugs who voted Aye is a Christian Scientist.

[frog92969]

82. It's like a chronic illness run rampant through our ruling class

They think it impresses the peasants.

The sooner we run the witchdoctors and their cults out of civilized society the better off every one of us will be.

[Barack_America]

93. OH MY GOD! Not a single Democratic crossover!

At least not that I saw.

Many Republican crossovers.

If that doesn't tell you who now holds the political capital in DC, I don't know what could.

My mind is officially blown.

Even that tool Boren from OK that refused to endorse Obama yesterday for being "too liberal" voted "aye".

[rambler_american]

127. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter

D NH 2 and D NH 1 respectively, both voted aye.
Proud of my Blue state.

[onehandle]

149. My Congressman John Lewis voted Aye?

Of course he did.

[burrowowl]

162. Heather Wilson NM voted AYE!?

I'll have to call tomorrow and say Good Job!
But I am agape

:wow:

[SergeyDovlatov]

16. This is how impeachment moves forward

This was the case with Nixon and with Clinton.
Impeachment is sent to committee for thorough investigation (or death) after that committee issues a report and recommends "go" "nogo" on the impeachment.

Now we need to press on Conyers to move it forward.

[eagleswing963]

22. I'm surprised

I'm in NJ, two Repubs voted yes!!

Aye NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney
Aye NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank

Of course Christopher "Bush is my Sith Lord" Smith did not!

[Imalittleteapot]

19. Accountability? Maybe. Legacy? Absolutely.

We are all hoping for accountability of the criminal, but if nothing else the 35 Articles will stain the Bush legacy.

[NorthCarolina]

20. Kucinich - America's Congressman

eom

[Sequoia]

32. Last night when I saw him on CSPAN

My first thought was....Thomas Paine. He's our Thomas Paine of today. Some of the things that were read were amazing even though I, like most of us here, knew the dirty trick ole Chimp was up to. If he gets impeached then Cheney HAS to go.

[NorthCarolina]

59. The House would be way more "ethical" if Kucinich were speaker

instead of Pelosi.

[Sequoia]

87. For sure.

Thos photos of her arm in arm with Bush made me ill. "Whatever you want honey!"

[CherokeeDem]

28. Did You Check Out Florida's Vote???

The Diaz-Balart boys (Lincoln and Mario) of Miami-Dade County are facing very stiff opposition and they both voted AYE. Scared boys???!! Stay that way.

[LiberalArkie]

29. Rollcall

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 401
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H RES 1258 RECORDED VOTE 11-Jun-2008 3:08 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Refer
BILL TITLE: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution


Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 227 7
Republican 24 166 9
Independent
TOTALS 251 166 16




---- AYES 251 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth



---- NOES 166 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)



---- NOT VOTING 16 ---

Braley (IA)
Cohen
Flake
Gillibrand
Goodlatte
Hulshof
King (IA)
Latham
Loebsack
McCrery
Neugebauer
Ortiz
Pascrell
Rush
Sessions
Tancredo



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JPZenger]

38. There are many moderate Dems on the aye list. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

72. I was completely shocked to see Rep Jim Marshall (GA) in the AYE list...

When I wrote to him about impeaching Cheney, he was completely unreceptive and sent me a form letter stating all the reasons why doing such a thing would be overkill.

Strange how things change.

[LeftyMom]

146. OMG, my useless congresswoman actually voted in favor.

Words can not express my shock.

[newamericanpatriot]

30. Not ONE Dem Against - John Conyers voted FOR.....

I'd say it's looking pretty goddamned healthy, actually. Stop being so damned pessimistic - that's how they roll over us! We can't afford the luxury of being weak,,,,

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iggo]

37. David Dreier (R, CA) voted "aye."

What the...?

[Irishonly]

85. I know

He's not my rep but I was shocked to see he voted yes. I always thought his head was in Boosh's behind.

[Iggo]

92. He was my rep...

...back in my 909 days. I hated that fucker.

[Duncan Grant]

136. Did hell freeze over?!

I'm dying to know the back story about Dreier's vote. Wow.

[Ishoutandscream2]

39. My representative, Ralph Hall

Bushbot and friend to the family. Poppy even came here to campaign for ol Ralph in 2006. And what does Ralph do today? Vote "aye"! One of 24 Republicans to do so. I am shocked, I tell ya. I called his office here in town and left a message that James was proud of his congressman today.

[dreyer]

41. How fitting Reps from OH and FL start impeachment

The two states illegally used and abused the most as part of the two stolen elections (article 28 and 29).

[TommyO]

44. Not surprisingly, my rep, Charlie Dent, voted no.

[a la izquierda]

163. Mine too...

dipshit Tom Cole, of Oklahoma. But, the Rep. from my hometown in NJ, Democrat Frank Pallone, of course voted Aye. Thanks Rep. Pallone. You're a good guy!!!

Interesting that Dan Boren voted yes, though he won't endorse Obama because his constituents are too conservative.:wtf:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

46. K&R

[Liberty Belle]

48. Wow, even Susan Davis voted yes!

She's voted conservatively on quite a few issues, notably the war.

Perhaps having a feisty progressive challenger who openly called for impeachment rattled her cage. AT any rate, I'm glad to see it!

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Reichert, repub from my district

actually voted yes. Not sure if I should be impressed, or if this is posturing for November. His last run against Darcy Burner was paper thin.

[jfkraus]

89. I was stunned he voted aye.

He's usually straight party line.

[Straight Shooter]

49. Hooray for Oregon! Except for Worthless Walden, of course.

Oregon
Aye OR-1 Wu, David - D :)
Nay OR-2 Walden, Greg - R x(
Aye OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl - D :)
Aye OR-4 DeFazio, Peter - D :)
Aye OR-5 Hooley, Darlene - D :)

[knixphan]

51. Thanks Jane Harman!

CA District 36 - Aye!

[RedLetterRev]

52. Oh, my goodness,

Brad Miller (D/NC) finally voted aye. I can't tell you how many letters I've sent him and how many replies of "I don't see anything that would rise to the level of impeachment" I got back. In my district, the only choice was either right-leaning Miller or the way-kook-right Vermin Robbin'some. Thanks, Brad. Ya finally found a pair.

[rucognizant]

62. I didn't even have to call!

Allen & Michaud, think the same way I ( we) do here in Maine.

[Brotherjohn]

53. So most Dems voted Aye. How does that compare to when the Cheney articles...

... went to committee? Does this mean anything more as for its chances, or is everything going pretty much like it did when that Cheney's impeachment went to committee and just sat there?

[Brotherjohn]

63. I see now. That was 218 ayes, 194 nays, along party lines. Progress I guess.

"218-194 vote along party lines to deliver the (Cheney) impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee" (Nov. 2007)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308738,00.html

[choie]

54. and where the hell is Pelosi?

[frog92969]

64. Maybe she took our advice

and got out of the way.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. I just called my Repuke slimeball.

Called John Culberson's Houston office. Told the girl that he was not representing the majority of the American people.

[Lost4words]

60. Heather Wilson of NM voted yes! I guess even she is sick of the GOP antics!

8643

[MichellesBFF]

79. My Dem didn't even vote!

I just don't get it...

[L. Coyote]

80. Actually, she participated in the crimes!! She pressured Iglesias.

And, she may be indicted yet for her actions.

Didn't she also lose the primary attempt for the US Senate seat?

[Lost4words]

175. Yes she did lose the primary for Domencie's seat!

to Steve Pierce 48% 52%. My Money is on Udall!!

[VP505]

86. She is on the way out so maybe

she suddenly developed a conscience, no, its probably more like she knew it was going into committee and would die. Funny thing is that if she hadn't been such an enabler and had stepped up to do right Booo$h might not have been able to do so much damage and impeachment wouldn't be necessary..

[Lost4words]

176. Isnt that the truth!! n/t

[Zorra]

69. Awesome to see our elected Democrats united in doing he right thing.

:applause:

[renate]

71. CNN is referring to the judiciary as "legislative no-man's land"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach.vote/index.html

An attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to impeach President Bush was kicked into legislative no-man's land by members of his own party Wednesday.

The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely.

The vote largely followed partisan lines, with 225 Democrats voting to punt the measure to committee.

*snip*

All 166 votes in favor of opening up a House impeachment debate came from Republicans, apparently eager to paint Democrats as political creatures in a time of serious issues. Kucinich voted with his party, against his own measure.

So, I'm confused....

[Barack_America]

94. OTOH, Conyers wants impeachment bad.

This could actually get interesting.

[Electric Flag]

170. Yes, it would seem to me that if you want impeachment you should've voted nay

Can anybody explain this please?

[mdmc]

184. allow me to try to explain miss

Kucinich voted with the democrats not to allow debate on the impeachment issue.
So far Kooch has gotten the essence of DU into the congressional record.
No need to make it a political issue until they are ready to rumble, or fold.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

81. Hello - Goodbye!

[dave123williams]

83. You need 50% of a full House Vote to refer the matter to trial in the Senate.

They'll kill it in committee.

[robinlynne]

99. but we just got more than 50% didn't we? And as soon as you open o[up the cans of worms, more

goo oozes out, and more people might consider it.

[dave123williams]

105. Ok, a primer on how they kill motions like this one.

The refer it to committee for debate, and it must pass out of committee to get back to the floor for a vote.

Dennis is quite the showman, because he knows he doesn't have the leadership votes to get that bill through.

Here's what will happen; some behind the scenes horse trading.

Pelosi, Madame Speaker, sets the agenda for the House. For all bills, assignments, she's got a lot of sway.

She doesn't want this, so it won't happen. She will give consideration to the Democrats on the Judiciary committee - some nice piece of pork for their home districts in exchange for a no vote on Impeachment. She will get them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. It is now up to John Conyers. He alone can decide if this gets a hearing

[Amonester]

147. OTOH, if she was faithful to her Oath of Office, she could become...

the first women President (for a few months).

I guess she doesn't want to make History, and give Hillary another run...

But one thing is for sure: by not honoring her Oath of Office, she automatically becomes an accomplice to this law-breaking Executive branch.

Sweet. :cry:

She could have made History by being brave and resolute...

She's gonna make History as being complicit to the law-breakers (if she doesn't change her mind).

In the meantime, how many more unnecessary U.S. and M.E. people will pay with their lives?? :mad:

[Diane R]

84. Wow. Dave Reichert (R) Washington voted 'Aye'. He's in a tough reelection race.

[juno jones]

88. Heck I'm amazed Larsen voted yes

A few years ago his staff (I don't think he was at his offices in B'ham at the time) was having old ladies arrested for protesting outside his office against the war. We must be wearing them down. Their re-election is becoming more important than the chimp. I suspect it says something about the shift of power in that Washington far, far away.

[pjt7]

96. I'm glad Rep. Paul voted for it

& it's great that it is an official matter of record & can be moved upon, especially if any more treachery is inflicted on the American people.

[crankychatter]

166. I'm on his email list since 04 - I started putting them all in the spam bin unread

he's been selling us on what a big deal liberal and bush opposer he is for the last few years

it gets a little nauseating

It could be true for all I know - I ain't in Everett anymore

just felt like a snow job to me

[juno jones]

171. Your feelings are correct

He's kept himslf 'safe'. He hasn't grown a spine until it would be evident that he had to to get re-elected.


You were in Everett? :) Used to live there many moons ago. I take it from the avatar you're bay area now. Nice place too. I miss it sometimes.

[crankychatter]

173. nah i grew up in the bay area.... from Seattle... in Kansas now

but I've lived in Alaska, WA, CA, AZ, MO, KS

since Katrina, Calif, Louisiana, Iowa, Florida, St Paul, Seattle, North Dakota and now Kansas City

[Raster]

107. I just noticed that! I live in Reichert's district, which up until now was considered as safe as

they come for rethuglicans. I daresay Representative Reichert is beginning to feel some heat. Darcy Burner made a DAMNED GOOD SHOWING against Reichert, losing by less than 2% of the total vote in a district that HAS NEVER ELECTED A DEMOCRAT.

I personally have called Reichert's office approximately 6 times to chastise him for his bush* lapdog votes. I've received several letters back from Reichert taking exception to my criticism. There is a VERY GOOD POSSIBILITY that Reichert may not hold on to his seat!

[chknltl]

153. Darcy Burner will have another go at Reichert

http://www.darcyburner.com/

I predict it will be another close one but this time the Democrat wins. I already have my Darcy Burner 08 button btw and I ain't even in your district! I am in congressman Norm Dicks's district. He is getting an earload from my friends and I regarding our desire for him to aid Congressman Kucinich.

[Counciltucky]

95. GOOD! n/t

[robinlynne]

97. can you explain what they yes and no votes mean? i.e. were they voting

to send it to committee? were they voting yes for impeachment?

[chknltl]

158. Sure. The votes were used to determine if the Impeachment resolution...

...was to end there in the House or be moved to the next phase: The House Judiciary. The votes by our congressman were in approval of sending the resolution to the next phase. I believe after the investigations by the House Judiciary are completed, they can (if approved) send it back to the House for phase three.

From: http://hematite.com/impeachment/
Investigation of impeachable charges:

The House of Representative has the responsibility to investigate the charges and if there is evidence of misfeasance or malfeasance to bring an Article of Impeachment against the government official.

When charges are preferred against an official, the matter is referred to the House Judiciary Committee or to a special House investigating committee. The charges are reviewed by a lawyer for each political party. The review team has 2 weeks to make their report.

If more information is needed on the charges an investigation is performed. The investigation is more of a grand jury hearing then a court of law. Once the charges have been investigated, if there is evidence to support the charges, Articles of Impeachment will be prepared for presentation at the trail and a report issued to the House.

If there is no evidence to support the charges it is reported to the House and the Impeachment Procedure is halted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


House votes to Impeach:

If there are Articles of Impeachment the House votes on whether or not to impeach, the Article of Impeachment is then passed to the Senate for the trail.

The House then would appoint "managers" who are like prosecutors, "They go over and present the charges to the Senate, which sits like a jury," said Mary Chen, a law professor at George Washington University. "


(Much more at the same link)

[robinlynne]

177. thank-you muchly!

[LaStrega]

100. ENTHUSIASTIC K/R! Have they finally found their spines?! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

101. I hate to disappoint you, but "sending the bill to committee" is a tactic...

designed to let a bill die a quiet death.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.impeach.vote/index.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. But isn't that what happened to the Cheney impeachment bill?

[SDuderstadt]

125. I really don't know about that...

Personally, I think the best thing to do would be to let them finish out their terms (actually, that's a little scary), then indict them.

[L0oniX]

106. Paraplegic House begins to feel below the waste again ...excellent.

[rambler_american]

128. You mean "waist"

The "waste" is in the White House.

[fudge stripe cookays]

112. Woohoo!

It's so nice to finally live somewhere my rep actually REPRESENTS me! Loves me some Gwen Moore! (fsc <-- recent transplant from Texas to Wisconsin)

:woohoo:

[npincus]

118. dare I say, "Holy shit"?

[FunMe]

124. 89% say yes to impeachment

The latest MSNBC poll:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

[Zodiak]

126. This is a good thing

At worst it has been entered into the record.

At best, while it languishes in the Judiciary Committee, it can act as a Sword of Damocles over *'s head should he decide to invade Iran. One more false move or illegal act, and proceedings begin. It can even be used to jawbone some legislation past his poisoned pen.

[Carmavore]

130. doesn't sound good :(

An attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to impeach President Bush was kicked into legislative no-man's land by members of his own party Wednesday.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush on Tuesday.
The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely.
The vote largely followed partisan lines, with 225 Democrats voting to punt the measure to committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.
All 166 votes in favor of opening up a House impeachment debate came from Republicans, apparently eager to paint Democrats as political creatures in a time of serious issues. Kucinich voted with his party, against his own measure.

WTF? I thought this was a good thing? CNN paints it like a victory for the pukes?

[jmowreader]

135. Jesus. Come on, guys, it's CNN. How do you THINK they'd report it?

"Sixteen Republicans voted with a united Democratic front today to hang pResident Bush by the balls.

"The 35-count Articles of Impeachment authored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, charge Fearless Leader with a plethora of crimes ranging from lying the country into war and murdering over four thousand American heroes in Iraq to electronic ballot box stuffing during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

"Legal experts contacted by CNN feel that if he's convicted in the Senate of so much as a third of all the crimes he's been charged with, the best pResident Bush can hope for is to be buried in secrecy so his grave doesn't get violated."

As for Speaker Pelosi, she's easy to handle: we just get Dr. Dean to bring Ms. Pelosi in and explain to her that if she doesn't allow this bill to make its way through the House, we'll have pResident Bush campaign for her. I believe she'll suddenly feel the need to clear a lot of brush.

[dana_b]

145. God, I know. I never watch CNN.

Let's face it, all cable "news" networks are a joke, even MSNBC. There is NO objective cable news.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

132. Apply pressure.

[George II]

134. It's GREAT to live in New England...unanimous AYE!

5-0 Connecticut
1-0 Vermont
2-0 New Hampshire
10-0 Massachussetts
2-0 Maine
2-0 Rhode Island

22-0 AYE! Even the only Republican in New England, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, voted AYE!

[connecticut yankee]

155. Good for Chris!

He's my congressman, and I've always liked him. In fact, I've voted for him several times.

[whistle]

138. Terrific!!!! Thanks Dennis...hurdle #1 jumped

:bounce: :hi: :kick:

[madrchsod]

140. hell must have froze over

Donald Manzullo in illinois voted for it....he`s the most conservative republican in northern illinois and he was behind the alan keyes debacle in 2004.....unbelievable

[lovuian]

142. So now is the Judiciary just going to be in Collusion with Bush

and allow him to commit 35 Impeachment offenses which is obviously unconstitutional

are they going to be negligent and appear to be in collusion and ignore their jobs

the Senate looks like the obstruction here

Pelosi did her job in getting the vote now harry its your turn now

[mnhtnbb]

148. ALL NC Dems voted 'aye', joined by 1 Repub!

[Dukkha]

152. 251 NAYS to Pelosi's table!

I guess she does NOT know what's best for the party and America.

[Mind_your_head]

156. Uhm, is it POSSIBLE that 'they're' afraid of the Power of the People?

and are voting 'thusly'?

D*mn ......FINALLY!?

[NewEnglandGirl]

159. No Matter What Happens

It's still best to make a statement and take a stand. And now we've done that.

[JeanGrey]

164. It is being wave there to die.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/bush_impeachment

House waves off impeachment measure against Bush

WASHINGTON - The House has voted to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to a committee that is not likely to hold hearings before the end of his term.

By 251-166, House members dispatched the measure to a committee on Wednesday — a procedure often used to kill legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago declared the prospects for impeachment proceedings "off the table."

[mcollier]

167. We need a change in Washington

We need to work with Obama and get state level candidates elected on the democratic side. We need to end the foolish tactics of the republicans (blocking progress every step of the way).

Large majorities in the house and senate is the solution for democrats.

Democrats have proven their eagerness to fight for all Americans, not just the few wealthing and connected and corporations.

Please join the Obama team and work as hard as you can to get new voters registered and reach out to your community with Obama's message of change and a better direction for our Country.

[raystorm7]

168. Kucinich says GRRRRR!

[Cleita]

180. Don't laugh but big sized dogs like yours in the picture are afraid

of my bad ass cat. Yes, we cats and little but brave dogs need to hiss and growl at the Washington establishment until they start feeling the heat under their well heeled torsos.

[Norrin Radd]

169. kr

[Indenturedebtor]

178. Wow that's good news even if it goes nowhere! n/t

[Cleita]

179. The membership of the Judiciary Committee

http://judiciary.house.gov/Committeemembership.aspx

The Committee Chairman is the Hon. John Conyers, Jr., (D) Michigan, 14th
The Ranking Member is Hon. Lamar S. Smith, (R) Texas, 21st

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

DEMOCRATS

Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

REPUBLICAN

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

If your Congressperson is on this roster you know what to do. Phone, email and snail mail. Petition anyone you know in the district to do the same. Also, there are more Democrats than Republicans. Get their attention. They need to feel the angry mob beneath them.

[chknltl]

181. THANK YOU for adding this. Fellow DUers PLEASE take note.

:thumbsup:

[bean fidhleir]

182. I must have missed a turn somewhere.

I thought the point of privileging a bill was to prevent it being knocked on the head and dropped into the peat bog of the Judiciary Ctte never to be seen again.

[chknltl]

183. 'Privileging a bill'?

I am no Constitutional scholar so forgive me for being unfamiliar with the term. From what little I know regarding impeachment, step 1 was the reading and voting to submit to the Judiciary part. Step 2 is letting the House Judiciary go through the referendum. If they agree that impeachable crimes have been committed, (and I believe they have 2 weeks to do this barring holdups), then it comes back to the House for step 3, a re-vote. If the House then agrees to pursue this further then the bill(?) referendum(?) goes on to the Senate (step 4) with the House playing the part of the prosecutes.

Let me remind you that I do not fully understand how this all works but that is the sequence of events that I am aware of. I have heard that Congressman Kucinich has threatened to submit a much larger impeachment referendum in 30 days if this one fails in the Judiciary. This suggests to me that his 35 article referendum does indeed have a limited amount of time in the Judiciary and instead of languishing, the referendum simply gets negated.

OTOH I have no idea what has happened to the Cheney impeachment referendum Kucinich introduced last year or the more recent Wexler impeachment referendum...perhaps there is indeed a way to snag these referendums and cause them to languish in the Judiciary as you suggest.

The important thing is that these are necessary steps that need to be taken if we are to ever remove bush and co from office. At worst these steps will document the very criminal activity the bfee has done these past 7 years and perhaps slow bushco down a bit. We notice that he has just today agreed to abide by the Supreme Court decision to reinstate Habeas Corpus for our 'guests' at Gitmo and our other gulags. The bush I have come to know and despise would NEVER have come out and agreed to going along with current law. Until very recently, he would have boldly found a way around having to abide by such a decision. Perhaps the impeachment referendum is having a modest affect!

[slm425]

186. If you want to read the 35 articles of impeachment...

I thought I'd supply a little "pleasure reading" for anyone interested in reading Kucinich's 65-page referendum:

http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/catalog/catalog.php?catalog_id=38

[cobalt1999]

187. The weren't voting for or against the impeachment; they were only voting to move it to a committee

The Yes/No vote is really a vote to get rid of it.