Another Congress Member for Impeachment

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

Congressman Robert Brady, (D., PA), who represents portions of Philadelphia, on Tuesday signed on as a cosponsor of House Resolution 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Also on Tuesday, Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Carlos Arredondo, Bill Perry and many other leaders of the movement for impeachment held a rally in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia was the first stop on the Journey for Humanity Tour after Monday's march and civil disobedience in Washington, D.C. The tour began in Crawford, Texas, on July 10.

Congressman Brady is to be congratulated for his heroic stand in support of the rule of law. He can be reached at [phone] or http://www.house.gov/formrobertbrady/issue.htm

With the addition of Congressman Brady, and including the original sponsor of H Res 333, Dennis Kucinich, there are now 15 Congress Members for impeachment. Including Jesse Jackson Jr., who says he supports impeachment, but who has not signed onto any bill, brings the total to 16.

These heroes are: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, and probably Jesse Jackson Jr.

The public is much more strongly behind the impeachment of Cheney, with 54% in favor and 40% opposed: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/24390 It is impossible to say if that support is rising or falling, since – amazingly – only one poll has ever been done on the topic.

But H Res 333 http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm only goes after a few of the obvious impeachable offenses committed by Cheney, and those few are related to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the threat of an aggressive war on Iran. War is an issue that scares off timid Congress Members. It's possible that articles of impeachment on other topics (spying, torture, signing statements, subpoenas, obstruction of justice, exposing a CIA agent, etc…) would garner more signatures. The menu of possible charges has something for everyone: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney2

Now is the time to ask your Congress Member to follow Brady's example: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73

You should ask members of the Judiciary Committee too:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/judiciarycommittee

Then contact the media. Chairman John Conyers says he's afraid Fox News would attack him. Let Fox News know we've got Conyers' back: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/1084

And above all, ask the pollsters to do another poll on public support for impeaching Dick Cheney: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

[onenote]

1. Hopefully this will put to rest the nonsense about Pelosi coercing members not to support impeachmen

From time to time, someone's tinfoil gets too tight and they offer up the notion that Pelosi has "something" on Conyers or others and is using it to keep them from pushing forward with impeachment. Often, this "something" is described as the fact that Pelosi controls chairmanships.

Well, first of all, committee assignments are made by a large steering committee (of which Pelosi is chair). But more importantly, the two latest members to sign onto the Cheney resolution are both Committee Chairs: Brady chairs the House Administration Committee and Filner Chairs the Veterans Affairs Committee.

So apparently Pelosi isn't really some all-powerful, all controlling dictator.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Why won't Pelosi put impeachment back on the table? It makes no sense.

[onenote]

5. Because she doesn't have the votes

There are several dozen blue dog Democrats who come from districts where, I suspect, impeachment is not that popular an idea. These Democrats generally shy away from votes that are strict party line. Unless and until there is some repub support for starting the impeachment process (just as there was some bi-partisan support for starting both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments), these Democrats aren't going to support it and Pelosi knows that trying to start the process now could go down in flames.

[Usrename]

10. They could take a vote every day until they have the votes.

They refuse to expose the Congress persons in our own party that are loyal Bushies.

Why do you think that is? Do you have any explanation or excuse?

Could it have anything to do with the party leadership?

[onenote]

23. it could have to do with wanting to keep a Democratic majority

Blue dog Democrats don't have to be "exposed"...the voters know where they stand and they know where their constituents stand. You aren't going to replace a Blue Dog with another Dennis Kucinich. You're going to replacae him/her with a real repub.

[Usrename]

27. So what's the difference?

You are telling me that it's perfectly OK to have loyal Bushies in the party, as long as they are Dems.

That's your only argument?

So why bother with even having a Democratic party?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I'm not saying she should ram it through, I'm saying she should say impeachment is back on the table

There was no vote I'm aware of that was taken when she took it off the table.

She doesn't need a vote to put it back on the table.

76% of Dem's nationwide are in favor of impeaching Chaney.

The break down of people opposed is as follows.

24% of Dems opposed

29% of independents opposed

83% of Repos opposed.

Stopping the process, by taking it off the table, guarantees it will go down in flames. Allowing an organic, natural process, where evidence is gathered, publicly aired, and discussed is how any impeachment any time has taken place.

I can't think of any other time in history that a Speaker of the House has declared a constitutional remedy to tyranny "Off the table."

[onenote]

24. evidence is being gathered throught oversight hearings etc.

But before you have an impeachment process, meaning before you have hearings and an investigation specifically addressed to the question of whether articles of impeachment should be recommended to the full House, you have a vote in the full House directing and authorizing the House Judiciary to undertake the investigation/hearings. Vote first, hearings second. That's the way it was done in the Nixon impeachment and the way it was done in the Clinton impeachment and its the way it will be done this time if its done at all.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Do you have a link to the first full house vote to authorize the judicial commitee

investigation/hearings? I've been looking at various timelines for the Nixon and the Clinton process and I haven't found anything like that.

I was under the impression that impeachment starts in the Judiciary Committe. I could be wrong, so if you have a link I'd like to learn.

Thanks.

[orleans]

26. who are these "blue dog dems"? never mind. i googled.

List of Blue Dog Coalition members
Mike Arcuri (New York)
Joe Baca (California)
John Barrow (Georgia)
Melissa Bean (Illinois)
Marion Berry (Arkansas)
Sanford Bishop (Georgia)
Dan Boren (Oklahoma)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Allen Boyd (Florida), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Dennis Cardoza (California)
Christopher Carney (Pennsylvania)
Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
Jim Cooper (Tennessee)
Jim Costa (California)
Bud Cramer (Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
Bart Gordon (Tennessee)
Jane Harman (California)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota), Blue Dog Whip
Baron Hill (Indiana)
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
Steve Israel (New York)
Nick Lampson (Texas)
Tim Mahoney (Florida)
Jim Marshall (Georgia)
Jim Matheson (Utah)
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
Mike Michaud (Maine)
Dennis Moore (Kansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania)
Collin Peterson (Minnesota)
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota)
Mike Ross (Arkansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
John Salazar (Colorado)
Loretta Sanchez (California)
Adam Schiff (California)
David Scott (Georgia)
Heath Shuler (North Carolina)
Zack Space (Ohio)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Mike Thompson (California)
Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

[truedelphi]

6. Is it possible that she is part of a political machine?

In California, they will put up a party loyalist hack who cannot in any way take on "Ahnold" just to avoid a newcomer like Steve Westly - a guy who had charisma and who captured the hearts and minds of people. I will always believe that if the machine had not done everything they could to discredit him, he might have snatched the Governorship away. Instead the party hack lost by a sizeable amount.

The Old DLC types have this inner sanctum of dictates. Inside San Francisco area, You cannot even run for local office as a Dem unless you have gotten the blessing of someone who knows Di Feinstein (if you can't get Di's approval on your own.)

This is in part why the Green Party is growing - and until the Old Line Dems change their ways and open up to the more progrssives - the Green Party and other parties will continue to grow.

[ClassWarrior]

7. To paraphrase John Edwards, they ain't gonna give up their power...

...unless we TAKE it away. Until the bullheads who are defecting to the Green Party and other parties change their ways and join the fight to TAKE BACK the Dem Party for Progressives, those Old Line Dems will continue to rule.

NGU.

[truedelphi]

22. I don't think it is that clear cut

If you want to make a difference inside your immediate community and you feel that the time to be a candidate is now - you pretty much have to defect to the Green Party in terms of the local situation.

Because I don't think things will change for at least twenty years.

Nationally, I feel like there is more of a chance to stay within the confines of the Democratic Party.

But the above is just my take on it.

[rjones2818]

9. It's because she's

an all-powerful all-controling dictator!

:evilgrin:

[MGKrebs]

14. What do you mean by "on the table"?

You mean open formal impeachment hearings right now?
Why? We have hearings going on right now that are investigating the misdeeds of this administration. What do you want?

[John Q. Citizen]

17. I want Pelosi to announce that she is changing her stance, and that impeachment is back on the table

Easy, simple, doable.

Investigations are great if they go anywhere, if they lead to action as the evidence comes out, or the obstruction of justice takes place.

Investigations that turn up evidence of crimes that don't result in action taken is useless.

[MGKrebs]

18. Let me ask you: What difference does it make what they call it at this moment?

The investigations are happening. The process is moving forward. How much more "on the table" could it be short of calling for the vote tomorrow (which would derail much of the work that has been done so far)?

Why do Pelosi's words (or lack thereof) mean so much? The ACTION is happening. Isn't that enough? Can't you see that NAMING what is going on would be counterproductive?

[John Q. Citizen]

19. The process is moving forward? How so?

Do you mean a vote in a month after vacation/recess about administrative contempt charges against Harreit Myers and bush' cheif of staff?

Last year John Conyers introduced a bill (H Res 635) to undertake an investigation and to see if there was evidence of possible impeachable crimes.

The current house oversite hearings are not investigations into possible crimes. They are house oversite hearings. How are they any different than the thousands of oversite hearings held in previous congress'? I'll inform you. They aren't. In name or in process or in effect.

If you would read up on the history of congress and on the law, you would see that. You might hold out hope that it's a secret Dem plan but it ain't.

[MGKrebs]

21. Oh I see. You just forgot to mention that you had a deadline.

Next month is too late for you.
OK. No problem. I understand now.

P.S.- You mean HR 635, of the 109th Congress? With a Republican majority? Just checking. I get a little fuzzy on history sometimes.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Yep. MLK said justice delayed is justice denied. I agree with that, do you?

Also, a contempt citation that get held up in court until after this congress adjourns and then becomes moot, for some lackeys, isn't my idea of hard hitting decisive action to defend the constitution from an executive branch run amok, even if it's real exciting to you. I hope it leads to something better than the Dem's full funding of the surge did. Like a little justice. But I'm not holding my breath. Are you?

Yeah, H Res 635, isn't that weird. Conyers introduces legislation for an investigation to see if there are crimes of an impeachable nature when the Repos are running things, but now that he's Chair of the judiciary, he wimps out. What's with that?

Was that all part of the secret Dem plan too?

[MGKrebs]

29. The point is action vs. words. I am trying to convince you that action is being taken.

The process is moving. You seem to want Pelosi or someone to NAME this process an "impeachment" process, as if the label will make it more satisfactory, and name it RIGHT NOW. I say, let's each do our part by writing, signing petitions, sending money (one way of expressing support), and other productive activities rather than inventing new and unnecessary hurdles for those who have to fight to implement these things. I think we should work to make it impossible for the leaders to NOT do our will, but creating dissension by insisting on superficial publicity stunts is counterproductive.

Sometimes I feel like we have spent so much time being the opposition party that we don't know how to support leadership anymore.

I have an MLK quote too:

"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

[John Q. Citizen]

30. I think your assumption that our leadership public servants want the exactly same thing as

thier constituents is debatable.

It's quite possible Pelosi would prefer bush and chaney to stay in power right up to the elections so as to enhance her power post election. In fact I think that's probably the plan she's following.

It's possible that she is secretly watching our back, but I don't believe it is likely.


Just as congress is now finally asserting it's demands on the executive branch to try to regain their power to do oversite, I feel it is incumbant to assert our demands on both the executive and the legislative branches to regain our constitutional rights.

Power doesn't voluntarily cede power, whether the executive branch to the legislative branch or the government to the people. Demands must be made on our public servants or they will surely usurp whatever they can. This is the same dynamic no matter what party is in power. I find it disquieting that some believe that we should be working for the people in power, instead of the other way around.

Power always says, wait, the check is in the mail, I'd do it now if only I could, but those who are satisfied with leaving it all up to our public servants will quickly find that they instead are the servants.

I believe MLKing was right about the universe, but he knew that the moral universe helps those who help themselves. King knew that to change any power dynamic that those without power had to place demands on those with power.

[pberq]

2. Thanks for your good work, David

[2008]

3. k&r (nt)

[ClassWarrior]

8. I bet you didn't claim Bush** had compromising pictures of him.

But that aside, this is great news, and I appreciate the rest of what you and afterdowningstreet.org do.

NGU.

[rjones2818]

11. Go Robert Brady!

Add another hero to the list (which should include the Good Lady Pelosi and Fine Representative Conyers, but we can't have everything).

Robert Brady: :yourock:

Go Dennis and Co-Sponsors!
http://dennis4president.com

[sueh]

12. Thank you, Rep Brady.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. It's an interesting idea that the illegal war aspects of HR333 is slowing it down. This

may be part of the dynamic.

Perhaps there needs to be a smorgas board approach to impeaching chaney. 3 or 4 bills with entirely seperate grounds for impeachment could be introduced and different Dems with different personal political problems could then sign on to the bill of their choice. Some Dems could co-sponcer all of them.

[MGKrebs]

15. Hopefully John Lewis isn't far behind.

[Canuckistanian]

20. H.R.333 just won't die, will it?

There were some (including here at DU) who said that the resolution would suffer a quick, painless death.

Glad to see they're wrong.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Great news, David.

Too bad Conyers and Pelosi are not paying attention to the people they serve.

[avrdream]

32. How many more do we need now?

Was it Conyers who said he needed 3 more representatives to sign on?