Help Kucinich to Impeach Bush

[Jodin]

Kucinich says he's pursuing impeachment? Well let's help him out. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Dennis Kucinich's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

Kucinich says he is building his case for impeachment, and is working to build the support of his peers in Congress. He says he intends to impeach. He said he needs us to keep building the groundswell of support for impeachment all over the country. He asks that we send him copies of all the resolutions passed in various States, local Legislative Districts, County Districts and of any petitions with signatures, so that he can present them to the floor of the House. He said he felt that our framing the issue of impeachment in terms of the Constitution is a principled choice, and ultimately more effective than just acting on anger. Here's video of Kucinich addressing the impeachment issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAIJyKhJhiM

Let's answer Kucinich's call with a petition that has it's precedent in history, and it's legitimacy in the Rules of the House of Representatives.

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help Kucinich to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. We're not only having you send them to Dennis now, but also to Impeach for Peace. That way, we can collect them all in one place, and deliver them all simultaneously (with cameras rolling) in July. Be a part of history.

Impeach Bush Yourself

[MonkeyFunk]

1. The so-called Jefferson rule

on impeachment would only require that the subject be brought up in the House.

Kucinich could, in the next session of the House, introduce articles of impeachment. There is absolutely no need for any state to implement the process. Kucinich can do it on April 17th.

In either case, the articles will be assigned to a committee where they will die.

[ClassWarrior]

3. "There is absolutely no need for any state..."

"...to implement the process," true. But it sure would drive the point home if a bunch of them did, wouldn't it?

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. sure

it has a certain PR value.

But the OP implied that somehow Kucinich needed "help" in introducing impeachment. He doesn't.

[rinsd]

6. Exactly.

And given that the state initiatives have either failed or stalled in committee in various state legislatures, its either Kucinich does it or it does not happen.

I think he will.

His campaign is flagging. I can't find any fundraising numbers on him beyond what was reported for 2006 and that was all of $11K. I did find out he does in fact have a campaign manager. Bad news seems to be the guy's experience is related to Kucinich in 2004 in ME and his own wife's campaign (she got crushed by Olympia Snow who got 74%).

So it makes perfect sense for him to introduce articles and use that a rallying cry to gather what ever support he can.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. He could have done it last month

What is he waiting for?

[Maraya1969]

41. What we don't need is people like you who go around this site trying to stop all our attempts

for progress. If everything was left up to your type of attitude nothing would ever get done. I've seen it too much from you now. This post may get deleted because of the rules but I hope it stays up long enough for some people to realize that 1,000+ posts mean nothing.

[Flabbergasted]

2. I was just talking to someone about that.

[Imagevision]

5. Even Reid is finally taking Dennis's idea about pulling the plug on funding the war

[mtnsnake]

7. Thank you for posting this!

Impeachment should be the number one priority, yet for some reason the idea of it is met with so much resistance here on this forum because of people claiming we don't have the votes it would take to impeach (because of the Blue Dog Democrats in the South, so the naysayers claim). All I know is that Democrats have way more than the one vote majority it takes in the House, assuming that the arms of these Blue Dog dems can be twisted a little.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. I don't know about that...

I think most people here think it's quite possible to get enough votes to impeach in the House. The problem I've seen mentioned time and time again is that we definitey do NOT have the votes to convict in the Senate.

[mtnsnake]

10. No

Try posting sometime that we have enough votes to impeach, like I have often posted myself, and you'll get more resistance than you ever imagined. Yes, there are some people who are confused about the difference it takes between impeachment and conviction, but there are just as many who are convinced that we don't have enough votes to even impeach because of these blue dog rebel Democrats. I'm not one of them who comes close to believing that, obviously.

[rinsd]

11. I can see that.

I can definitely see Democrats in the House who may be uneasy with an impeachment vote if the chances in the Senate for conviction are remote.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. well

I don't know the answer to that. Right now, it seems unlikely the Dems would stick together as a bloc in the House, but it's possible.

But it's a meaningless discussion, ultimately, because without the Senate votes, it's never going to be put to the test.

[mtnsnake]

13. Try telling that to the Republicans who successfully impeached Clinton

Try telling them that it was a meaningless discussion. They impeached Clinton, didn't convict, but still ended up with two successive terms in the WH as a reward.

[Nederland]

14. Republicans did not win because they impeached Clinton

They won inspite of it. All the polls show that Republicans lost popularity and votes because they pursued impeachment.

[mtnsnake]

15. Show me those polls please. nt

[Nederland]

16. Here you go

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

Right after impeachment, Clinton went up 10 points and Republicans went down 10 points.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Yep

and dems picked up seats in '98, almost unheard-of for the 6th year of a presidency.

[mtnsnake]

19. Thanks. Gee, I guess we better not impeach Bush now. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Correct

we should not do it now. It would surely fail and hurt Democrats.

[mtnsnake]

21. Yeah, we should wait until he's free and thumbing his nose at us. nt

[ClassWarrior]

22. And you base this on the Rape-Publicans fraudulent attempted coup...

...on the Clinton Presidency? That a just IMPEACHMENT of Bush/Cheney** is basically the same thing?

:eyes:

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Nope

I base it on the fact that I can count to 67.

[ClassWarrior]

24. That's right, you're the one who believes in doing the right thing...

...only if it's popular.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Nope

and it's never a good idea to presume what other people believe. If you want to know, just ask.

[ClassWarrior]

26. I'd never presume to presume. We've had this conversation before.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. I quote:

" That's right, you're the one who believes in doing the right thing...
...only if it's popular."


So instead of making this personal, would you rather discuss the issue?

[ClassWarrior]

28. Sorry, just recalling our past encounter on this. Go on...

...discuss the issue.

NGU.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. then you have me at a disadvantage...

I don't bother to memorize what issues I've discussed with which DUers.

Anyway, my point is that it's wrong to try to judge my character or integrity based on the political strategies I defend. I want Bush impeached 5 years ago. But I understand the game of politics, and impeaching him today will result in sure failure in the Senate, thus giving the impression that Bush was acquitted, and therefore innocent.

It's a discussion of strategy, not morality.

[mtnsnake]

33. If the rest of our Democrats give up as easily as you do, then we're truly fucked.

But I understand the game of politics, and impeaching him today will result in sure failure in the Senate, thus giving the impression that Bush was acquitted, and therefore innocent.

That's gotta be one of the sorriest reasons I've ever heard of to not impeach Bush. How the hell do you know it will result in sure failure in the Senate? Maybe you don't realize that the process of impeachment is the ONLY way we're ever going to get all the facts out on the table, and once the facts are out on the table, that will spell immediate trouble for Bush. If he's guilty, he'll be convicted. If he's not, he won't. The Senate CANNOT dispute facts. If they do they'll be held accountable, too.

Even without worrying about whether he'd get convicted or not, he needs to be impeached because most likely he'd resign just with the THREAT of conviction looming over him. Not impeachimg Bush would be almost as bad as some of the crimes he's committed. Not impeaching him would send the message that the next president can get away with murder, too.

Stop worrying about what might happen if he isn't convicted. What's important is that justice is served to this madman so no other asshole ever walks in his shoes again.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. I know it will result

in failure in the Senate because I'm not an idiot.

Now, it's possible that the current investigations would bring forth information that would change that outcome. But as of today, it would be sure to fail.

And in fact, I don't think we'd be better off with Dick Cheney as President.

[Tellurian]

34. Here are the fruits of a past discussion of Impeachment similar to Kucinich's plan..

It's DOA...and I agree with the poster who said upthread, Kucinich's numbers are low and is looking for another platform to garner support and perhaps keeping him in the limelight a bit longer. What I dislike about Kucinich's tactics, is giving people false hope by coming up with a plan he knows is untenable.

Kucinich's idealism is beginning to parallel self-interest.

This from a previous discussion with someone in the know regarding "The Jefferson Manuals" and why this plan is DOA:

Begin at post #9 and then read the response in post # 12-

Why Kucinich's Plan is DOA

[Nederland]

37. No

I believe that given a choice between trying to impeach Bush and failing and passing legislation that could actually help them, Americans will choose the latter every time.

Democrats ignore this reality at their peril.

[bdamomma]

18. kick

[Czolgosz]

29. K & R - GO DENNIS GO!

[warren pease]

31. Impeachment is vital if this country is to survive BushCo

I think it's that urgent and that the survival of the republic is at stake. They've already just about killed it with election theft, the death of the bill of rights and habeas corpus, wars of aggression for oil, domestic spying, ecocide, cronyism, breaking international treaties, religious insanity, a broken economy, Gitmo, torture -- add your own pet outrages here. And an interesting sidelight: imagine tens of thousands of Blackwater brownshirts armed with fully automatic weapons acting as the enforcement arm of the GOP, beating, imprisoning or "disappearing" anyone bold enough to oppose the BushCo fascist steamroller. And don't even think it can't happen. To BushCo, the Constitution is just a useless relic that needs to go away, and the sooner the better.

Conventional wisdom tells us impeachment would be a waste of time because Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate. However, while a guilty verdict would be sweet beyond measure, exposing the crimes of this administration through public impeachment hearings and a Senate trial means sanity can prevail even without a guilty verdict. The filthy essence of the BushCo slime trail, revealed every day by hours of sworn testimony detailing this administration's "high crimes and misdemeanors," would at least force the hideous fucking media to deal with the fact that their hero is on trial and that there is something at stake besides stains on a blue dress.

I don't doubt that they'll do their usual BushCo suckup spin, but less than 30 percent of the people now support this dangerous fraud, despite that fact that msm has fed them nothing but GOP talking points for six years. The Iraq disaster has coalesced opinion against BushCo, and it's time to use that advantage to nail them to the wall. Or at least try. Hell, when the entire country hears specifics on what these bastards have been up to, the roar of outrage from some former BushCo supporters may force some of the less crazed GOP senators to vote to convict. And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.

Anyway, what the hell do we have to lose? By doing nothing, we guarantee more of the same and tacitly sanction what's being done in our names and with our tax money. By starting impeachment proceedings, we at least get some of the sons of bitches under oath and, if there is a god, we stand a chance of finally getting rid of them. Snitches will emerge as insiders scramble to avoid prosecution and cut immunity deals. And if there are multiple gods, the fallout from the public revelations of systemic corruption may even leave such a foul taste in the collective mouth of the electorate that we'll be rid of wingnuts as a political force for a generation. And isn't that worth going for?


wp

[MonkeyFunk]

32. No

it really isn't.

Despite the histrionics displayed here daily, the republic will survive this asshat just fine. Believe it or not, this is not America's darkest hour.

It's bad, but please, try to have a sense of history and perspective. We've endured bad presidents before, and we'll probably have to endure them in the future. Yet we go on.

[warren pease]

38. I think you misunderestimate...

... the sheer malevolence oozing from these pricks, as well as the stranglehold they have on all important support systems.

This may not be "America's darkest hour," although I suggest it's right up there with the blackest of the black. However, consider the concentration of power in place here. The courts are stuffed with wingnuts, ensuring an anti-citizen, pro-corporate agenda for at least a generation. Unless Congress can somehow purge the new wingnut US Attorneys, DoJ will have a distinctly rightist political agenda at least until a democratic president asks for their resignations. And they can do a hell of a lot of damage to civil liberties in the next two years.

Congress, while nominally in democratic control, is still dominated by people who either can't or won't acknowledge the harm BushCo has done. Worse yet, some who are bright enough to understand it completely, still won't oppose the boy king because they feel it's not in their political interests to do so. Either way, they're more inclined to enable than to oppose, with pathetically few exceptions.

And there's the means of communication. Corporate control of mass media is bad enough in the abstract, but we've all seen exactly what that means in the real world. Six years of fellating this fraud and now, even though only around 30 percent still support him, they're still covering for him every chance they get. And that's not even counting Fux news, which somehow manages to see the good in a fascist takeover.

Possibly worst of all, americans still seem to think they live in a representative democracy, despite stolen elections that amount to a bloodless coup and extreme abuses of domestic intel to mess with anybody, any time, for any reason -- or none at all.

And we've "endured bad presidents before." We survived Grant's alcoholism. We survived Cleveland's corruption. We survived Nixon's lunacy. We even survived Reagan's best efforts to transfer all wealth to the upper class -- he only got most of it.

But we have never survived a well-planned attack on every single guiding principle that differentiated this country from (your favorite banana republic here).

Their objective was to destroy the New Deal. Mission accomplished, although Social Security survived for the time being and Medicare, not a New Deal program but in the same vein, is under the familiar budgetary stress they've inflicted on every single program that doesn't benefit the wealthy corporate/campaign contributor class.

Their objective was to continue the transfer of wealth upward. Mission accomplished. Tax laws, off-shoring and accelerating globalization have reduced the middle class to a small cadre of badly scared people going backwards economically, while swelling the ranks of the poor to a point unseen in my lifetime.

They set out to plunder the planet for any and every raw material. Mission in progress. Whether it's approval of clear-cutting practices condoned by the "Healthy Forests Act," angry opposition to even tepid measures to combat global climate change like Kyoto, further befouling national air space under the guise of the "Clear Skies Initiative," helping accelerate the demise of tropical rain forests by encouraging the beef industry in its insane drive to turn the Amazon into grazing land for their fucking cattle, who fart methane gas and further exacerbate the climate problem. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The key is that it's not incidental. It's been planned by the right wing for decades, ever since Goldwater got swamped in 1964 and the wingers decided they needed to refine their message and strategy. And although that sounds a bit paranoid, it's pretty much out in the open these days. It's what people like Paul Weyrich and Grover Norquist and the Newtster and a bunch more well-funded, deadly serious people have spent their lives organizing and waiting for. When they couldn't wait any longer, they decided to just steal their way to power in 2000.

And then there's this interesting tidbit. Blackwater is apparently looking to acquire an old military base somewhere in southern California. Now the paranoid among us could see this as providing a training ground and barracks facilities for the enforcement arm of the right wing coup -- the equivalent of the Central and South American death squads our leaders are so fond of. Of course, no rational person would set up or even condone such a thing, which means that it's probably true since we are, after all, dealing with fucking lunatics.

So I don't really think I'm overreaching when I say that we need to interrupt this process yesterday. It's gotten out of hand and if something isn't done to put the brakes on, we might well be sitting around in a camp somewhere next year wondering how the hell this happened in the land of the free.

I'd love to be wrong on this, but best evidence suggests otherwise.


wp


edited for geographical accuracy

[Tellurian]

39. well stated, wp-

the writing is on the wall. The Rules of Engagement have been redacted with the redacted language stealthily transferred to the Executive Branch, essentially designating the Land of the Free, under the power and control of an unannounced dictatorship. Once Blackwater is firmly entrenched within our boundaries is when the hammer will fall. imo- they are the last of the necessary pieces, finalizing the puzzle for the emergence of the New Republic of America.

[mtnsnake]

35. You are very right. We've got nothing to lose and everything to gain

I can't believe how some people, Democrats of all people, do their best to try and make sure justice isn't served to this criminal. It's almost as if they have a personal investment in Bush's future well-being.

[femrap]

40. Kucinich is the only true peaceful candidate...

he deserves more POSITIVE media coverage.

BTW, something has been bugging me about the coverage he gets. He is always accused of being an 'elf.' Or of being short and impish.

Do you realize that Cheney is only 5'8". Shit, Rummy was only 5'6". And have you looked at Gates? He can barely reach the f*cking dias! What 5'4"?

Why is Kucinich the only male attacked because of his height? Why??????

I believe Kucinich deserves so much more from the Progressive/Liberal Democrats.....so much more.