Impeachment - "Pelosi should step out of the way and let her colleagues restore the rule of law."

[Sapphire Blue]

The Nation
comment | posted July 26, 2007 (August 13, 2007 issue)
Impeachable Offenses
John Nichols

Recently PBS's Bill Moyers Journal devoted a full hour to the subject of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney--the first such attention by a national network. The remarkable thing about the response was not its size or intensity. After visiting more than a dozen states to address the issue, I have come to understand the depth of the public's desire for accountability. But it was only after Moyers invited conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein and me to lay out not merely the specific grounds for impeachment but the historical rationale for applying the "heroic medicine"--the Founders' preferred cure for a constitutional crisis--that I fully understood the extent to which Americans recognize that this is about a lot more than the high crimes and misdemeanors of a regal President and his monarchical Vice President. The stakes are enormous: If Bush and Cheney are not held accountable, this Administration will hand off to its successors a toolbox of powers greater than any executive has ever held--more authority, concentrated in fewer hands, than the Founders could have conceived or would have allowed.

Among the thousands of responses after the program aired in mid-July, there was a steady theme: This is no longer a partisan issue. Inside the Beltway, the calculus these days rarely gets beyond the next election; but outside it there are tens of millions of Americans worried about the next generation--indeed, about the fate of the Republic. To be sure, there are Bush haters among their number, fierce partisans who--in an echo of the Republicans who a decade ago went after Bill Clinton--have adopted a "by any means necessary" approach to the goal of cutting short the Bush/Cheney tenure. But the national conversation in which we engaged after the Moyers program aired suggested that they are a minority of the 54 percent of Americans who tell pollsters it's time to open impeachment hearings on Cheney's misdeeds, and the only slightly smaller number who favor the process for Bush.

The Washington elites still try to dismiss the impeachment movement as an ill-considered reflexive reaction to a President Americans don't like and a Vice President they fear--or, worse yet, as some sort of partisan payback. But the plain truth is that most of those who responded to the Moyers discussion recognize that the point of impeachment is not the transitory crimes of small men but the long-term definition of great offices. Fein, an official in the Reagan Justice Department, and I come from different points on the ideological spectrum, but we agree that the Founders intended impeachment less as a punishment for officeholders than as a protection against the dangerous expansion of executive authority. If abuse of the system of checks and balances, lies about war, approval of illegal spying and torture, signing statements that improperly arrogate legislative powers to the executive branch, schemes to punish political foes and refusals to cooperate with Congressional inquiries are not judged as high crimes, the next President, no matter from which party, will assume the authority to exercise some or all of these illegitimate powers.

The burgeoning movement for impeachment is a rational response to a moment when polls tell us that roughly three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. This Administration has not just let Americans down; it has frightened them. A great many understand, intuitively or explicitly, that we are experiencing a constitutional crisis and that impeachment proceedings are the proper tonic. Unfortunately, key Democrats continue to mistake the medicine for the disease. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still keeps impeachment "off the table"; she and her advisers fear that if they allow Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers to open impeachment hearings, it will rally the Republican base in defense of Bush and Cheney. History suggests she's wrong: Opposition parties that have pursued impeachment in a high-minded manner have, in every instance, maintained or improved their position in Congress and have usually won the presidency in the next election. Pelosi should step out of the way and let her colleagues restore the rule of law. More than a dozen have shown their desire to do so by co-sponsoring Representative Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Cheney.


Continued @ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/nichols

If you feel moved to contact Speaker Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the members of the House Judiciary Committee, or your US Representative, and inform them of your stand on impeachment, you may reach them @ the following Capitol Hill Switchboard TOLL FREE numbers:

1-877-851-6437
1-800-828-0498
1-800-459-1887
1-800-614-2803
1-866-340-9281
1-866-338-1015
1-866-220-0044

[cui bono]

1. I agree. I like Pelosi but I think she's miscalculating things here.

And this is not something that should weighed as to the political ramifications, this is about protecting the constitution - our country - and it is her duty. Unfortunately I think she has my congressman on her side since he's her assistant and at a town hall meeting last month he told me that he feels there have been impeachable crimes committed but that impeachment isn't the priority, that they are trying to deal with other issues and get legislation passed and make progress. What will any of that matter if we don't have our democracy? If we don't have our civil rights? If we end up with a dictator? And besides, it's not like the legislation that the house is passing is going anywhere in the senate. The Repubs are just obstructing everything the Dems are trying to do, so let's get down to business already!

[ray of light]

2. Frankly, It's probably Hoyer who is preventing it.

[Sapphire Blue]

3. Hoyer on Impeachment: No Thoughts

Hoyer on Impeachment: No Thoughts
By Paul Kane | April 24, 2007; 4:45 PM ET

~ excerpt ~

This is in no way a statement one way or the other about the validity of such charges, merely a reality check based on a run-in Capitol Briefing just had with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is the man in charge of scheduling legislation for the House floor.

We caught up with Hoyer and showed him a copy of the press release announcing Kucinich's planned 5 p.m. presser to roll out the impeachment articles.

After explaining that Kucinich himself was hand delivering the releases to reporters in the Speaker's Lobby, just off the House floor, Hoyer was asked for his thoughts on the matter.

"My thought is, he was busily engaging in handing that out," Hoyer said, politely handing the impeachment release back to Capitol Briefing. "Beyond that, I don't have any thought about it."


(snip)

Earlier in the day, a different reporter asked Hoyer about Kucinich's plan, prompting Hoyer to deflect the issue and say it was a matter for the Judiciary Committee. Then, he added that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wanted to focus on "substance", an apparent dismissal of the issue.

"Some time ago Speaker Pelosi indicated that what we need to do is focus on the substance of the issues at hand, and that's what we're going to do," Hoyer told reporters. "That's as far as I'm going to go."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/04/hoyer_on_impeachment_no_though.html

[mmonk]

5. I hate the substance lie.

Why can't they just be honest and say not enough democrats in the House want to do it?

[OzarkDem]

27. I think Hoyer, et al are threatening Dems

I think they're trying to convince Dems that if they impeach, the corporations will withdraw campaign funding and invest it in candidates to run against them. I doubt its true or even realistic, but there are probably just enough Dems who don't want to rock the boat and want to keep raising that campaign cash.

On edit: Its also possible that the Impeachment vote will end up being like the Iraq War vote. Any Dem too chicken to back impeachment is probably going to pay for it in the next election. All the corporate campaign cash in the world won't save Dems who caved to pressure and let Bush and Cheney get away with their crimes.

[seafan]

4. Speaker Pelosi won't be able to stop the tsunami.

Speaker Pelosi, lead or step out of our way. We The People are coming to IMPEACH THIS CHARLATAN.


It is only a matter of time.

[mzmolly]

14. That's exactly right.

From my post in GD

The internal strife on the left probably doesn’t make much difference to the chances for impeachment, he says. That’s because, Nichols explains, no one leader in the House can make impeachment happen.

“John Conyers wants to impeach, there’s no question of that. He wrote a book on it last year. He moved the proposal to set up a special committee to do it. But Pelosi has made it clear she doesn’t want to do it,” Nichols says.

“We’re exactly where we’ve been all along, which is this process is going to have to go member by member, getting them to sign on. John Conyers would be absolutely delighted if he were forced to take up impeachment.”

The notion that John Conyers or Nancy Pelosi can make impeachment happen is mistaken, Nichols says. “The way Jefferson and Madison set it up, it’s supposed to be an organic process–it comes from people slowly convincing individual members to step up.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25098">AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG

[Virginia Dare]

43. There's absolutely no reason to believe she would try...or want to..n/t

[KittyWampus]

6. "most of those who responded to Moyers"- only a tiny fraction of Americans saw Moyers' program.

And the title saying Pelosi should get out of the way is just insane.

She is the Speaker, elected by her colleagues.

The only way she'll "get out of the way" is if the other Reps make her.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Boy Pelosi is sooooo powerful. A single woman holding back the tidal wave of impeachment....

.... Who woulda thunk it?

[icymist]

8. Indeed. We should all ask ourselves why this particular Speaker

should hold back such an important tool as impeachment which is intended to check a rouge President in a time of Constitutional crisis. Yes, the attack on our Constitution from this administration has been so grand as to provoke a crisis, the likes not seen since our Civil War!

[mmonk]

9. She doesn't want to appear weak.

Evidently, there are plenty of democrats in the House that don't support doing something against the bush/Cheney crimes. If she joined in and brought it to a vote, she wouldn't have the votes. However, she should lobby and someone should whip these particular "dems" into changing their positions.

[icymist]

11. By taking impeachment 'off the table' she made her position weak.

Hell, by doing that act alone, she made ALL the Dems look weak. We, as a country, need impeachment back, if only as a deterrent to prevent further destruction of our Republic. This impeachment is just as great of a deterrent as any criminal penalty that is warned before any potential criminals in society. The President is in no greater position above the Constitution than anyone else.

[mmonk]

13. She definitely should not have taken it off but I'm pretty

sure she either did a head count or just listened to Rahm.

[icymist]

18. Head count is not what I'm understanding this tool was intended for.

The Republicans sure didn't care about headcounts when impeaching Clinton. They did it on morale grounds and halting all other presidential business until the impeachment was resolved. That, I believe was what the Founders intended impeachment to be used for.

Now, before responding further, I and others do not know what Rahm is. Could you please define this?

[mmonk]

20. Rahm Emanuel.

She needs to have the votes before she allows it on the floor or it will look as a defeat of her power.

[icymist]

21. Look as a defeat of her power? What does taking impeachment off

the table look like? Oh Nancy! You're dealing with a man that has absolutely no conscious at all! Every tool in your arsenal must be made available. To put things in Bush's words: 'When bargaining with G.W. Bush, you're bargaining with the DEVIL'. I don't agree with everything about Chavez except here he's right.

[OzarkDem]

26. No other House Speaker has been held to that standard

Why is Pelosi different? The crimes of this administration are serious, one of the most dangerous administrations in recent history.

Why is the imaginary impeachment bar set so high in Pelosi's case? Because she's a woman? Its hogwash. Its members of her own party trying to talk her out of it.

[shadowknows69]

17. We need a contingency for a national vote of no confidence in any of our leaders

and a constitutional amendment to make it the law of the land.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. A few short weeks ago the argument was they didn't have the votes in the Senate

Now they have moved the goal posts, and the argument is they don't have the votes in the House.

I wonder which Dem representatives have changed their position to back bush/chaney in an impeachment probe?

[onenote]

51. Was there ever any evidence that we had the votes in the House?

I don't think so. There was simply naive assumptions that since impeachment only requires a simple majority in the House and the Democrats have a simple majority, we had the votes. BUt that assumed, naievely, that all of the Democrats in the House would support impeachment, ignoring the several dozen Blue Dog Democrats who are unlikely to support impeachment unless and until some repubs say that they support authorizing Judiciary Committee hearings.

Nobody moved the goalposts. Rather, people finally started to notice where they've been all along.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Isn't it funny that the politicians are so often accused of 'just following

the polls', but when the polls say that 54% of the populations favors impeachment of Cheney, they claim to be afraid of upsetting the the electorate with political shenanigans?

For 40 years we've had the media telling us what we are supposed to believe - and with the people who own the media in the government, the media is still telling us that impeachment is a bad idea. The people are no longer listening, and the pols just don't get it yet.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK

If our leaders don't recognise where the people are headed, they will be swept out of the way.

[mzmolly]

15. Publically she'll maintain a "lets move forward"

mantra, privately I would guess supportive of impeachment?

[Demeter]

40. It's ROGUE, not rouge! Rouge is Red, color for the cheeks

Rogue is a lawbreaker.

[icymist]

49. LOL! I was typing fast and it got through the spell check!

Maybe we could agree that Dimwit is the rouge rogue president?

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Is your argument that the Speakership isn't a powerful position? I'd like to see you

make that case....

[Truth2Tell]

24. Sure, she can't single handedly make it happen...

but it might help if she would endorse it or advocate for it. She's well deserving of criticism, even if she does not possess the ability to impeach all by herself.

[IDemo]

10. Link for transcript and video of the show

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

[Vidar]

22. K&R.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

25. She may be concerned about her legacy and career

She's never been one to tackle controversial topics and she probably feels an impeachment investigation would be a "smudge" on her political resume.

A lot of women in Nancy's generation who tried to rise to power in the Democratic party (and there are few, very few) had to learn to make a lot of compromises in order to get ahead. Nancy grew up in the "don't make waves" era, when it wasn't considered wise to challenge party ideology or practices or advance controversial issues. "Go along with the boys and do what they want and you'll be ok. Don't rock the boat." They end up compromising so much they no longer know what they stand for or what values are important.

She's a product of her environment; her conscience, leadership skills and creative edge dulled by years of inter and intra party political maneuvering. She got where she is by learning to make decisions based not on principle, but on political calculation.

She's wrong about impeachment and she probably knows it, but she's incapable of admitting it or of doing anything else. Its a ridiculous charge, that she would appear to be trying to advance her position since she's next in the chain of command. But hell, that accusation could be made against any House Speaker who ever presided over impeachment proceedings. She's too afraid of making some of the "boys" angry to do what she knows is right.

Allowing her to recuse herself will save her face and allow an investigation to go forward, though I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea considering we don't know who would lead the impeachment proceedings in the House. Steny Hoyer or Rahm Emmanuel, I don't think so.

[AntiFascist]

28. Could she be an honorary member of the "old boys club"? n/t

[defendandprotect]

32. Do we actually know who is and who isn't a member of the DLC ????

And among the Democratic candidates, do we know?


DLC = Republican branch of Democratic Party

[defendandprotect]

33. If you don't have time for IMPEACHMENT, how do you have time for a RECESS--???

And they fairly quickly go from summer recess into the Labor Day thing . . .
and then before you know it, they're out for the holidays!!!!

[PATRICK]

29. The missing math

is that Congress only partially represents the people fairly by a whole host of benchmarks. They avoid by overall nature letting people realize that and cannot act except to betray the people by success in crimes or failure in justice. The Dem Congress that does, in the growing aggregate but not totally, represents the people, wants to move the representation forward to more sync with what lawful democracy purports to be. At the same time it more than is healthy plays the deceptive, counter, avoidance game. Should victory place more power in their hands it is very far from certain that the lack of real representation and the reality of avoidance will end. Once in range of more power performance, falling short can continue the abysmal decay of democracy and once more threaten its future.

A great portion of the Dems mostly cautionary stance seems to cement non-representational and evasive performance as a corrupting likelihood into the foreseeable future at the same time more people can see the present danger and understand the past evasions more correctly than DC people within the system.

[Disturbed]

30. Pelosi is in a difficult situation.

Is she now announced that she will sign on to the Impeachment of Cheney &/or Bush it will seem that she is a flip flopper & wants to be Pres. The only way out for her is to recuse herself from the process. all the excuses for not Impeaching Bush & Cheney are running thin.

[PATRICK]

46. It was not a brilliant thing

for the Dems to cave so quickly and unconditionally on a wide range of important stands. Accused of insulting GOp crooks with the truth they modestly, politely back down. They also put filibustering off the table and now in face of GOP filibustering put the GOP atomic threat solution off the table. The knot of inaction they have tied from a twofold self-defeating hybrid of the "proper, high and non-partisan" road and fear of the GOP ruthlessness is a moral traffic jam. In that pile up the ever confident Third Way drivers are confidently pouring over useless road maps while the progressive spouse in the back seat fumes with scorn.

Maybe there is no way out, but the situation threatens to take us to eventual divorce court should we ever get out of this mess.

[defendandprotect]

31. WE NEED TO PUSH FOR OPEN E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL --

This is nonsense going in and out of websites filling out forms for every message you want to pass on to one of your elected reps. --

They have to open the e-mail --

Yeah--they'll get a lot of mail -- but when they stand on the Senate or USHR floor, they aren't expecting to speak only to members of their own states -- they expect to be addressing the nation.

Then . .. they have to be willing to hear back from the nation --

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. They ignored these so I don't know why emails would make any difference

[Yukari Yakumo]

35. Anyone who thinks impeachment should move forward, consequences be damned...

...is nuttier than a hatter.

The votes are certainly still not there in the Senate. And probably not there in the House (especially if the Red Dogs balk at the motion).

The public really doesn't give a damn one way or another. They hate Chimpy, but when it comes to impeachment, they merely shrug their collective shoulders.

And Pelosi knows the score far, far better than anyone. Lay off her. Bitching and whining about her hurts the cause far more than it helps.

Anyone who preaches the "Pelosi is a coward" or "Replace Pelosi" meme should be reminded of Rule 2 by the mods, and if they don't get the hint, then they should be told they can take their whining elsewhere. DU is a site intended to promote and support the Democrats and the progressive agenda, not cut them down. Democrats are not immune to criticism, but the whiners and complainers had damned well back up their complaints with something substantive.

[broadcaster]

36. You're the nut, sorry. n/t

[Vanje]

41. Well then ,you can call me Hazel

because, apparenly i'm a nut.

Your post offends me.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Demeter]

39. Forgive Me If I Don't Buy This Argument

I don't believe the public as a whole is considering the long-term effects of Bush/Cheney power grabs.

I think the public is scared shitless by Bush/Cheney RIGHT NOW!

The public voted to end Iraq--and quite clearly. Nothing happened. The Congress got up and did its stateman-impersonation-and nothing happened. The GOP cadres started to publicly grumble, cut and run,

AND NOTHING HAPPENED!

The public has come to the realization that the only way to ride this mule is to first get its attention--Yosemite Sam way. And Impeachment is the Biggest Stick in our possession (that is still legal).

The public in general doesn't pay attention to the long run. They usually haven't the time, energy, will, smarts, or in some cases all four. But the short run is killing them, killing us all.

[Summer93]

42. Power of Congress - does not equal power of the people anymore

I agree with the one who said

"She is stalling in support of the conspiracy to own the iraq oil at any cost."

I think that the majority of the people in office are very wealthy and that wealth demands certain decisions from them. They have to support the corporations that are currently in charge of everything in this country.
I see corporations with so much money that they have to make give aways to the ceos of millions of dollars while off-shoring businesses.

The corporations have taken jobs from Americans and filled them with cheap labor abroad. That leaves citizens of this country with very little "clout"

The elected representatives and senators have the best of all worlds, megabucks, lots of time off, great health care, they vote themselves pay raises, they sit around and talk of their opinions while doing very little.

This administration has helped me to grow quite cynical.

[Virginia Dare]

44. Nancy Pelosi is not "in the way" of impeachment...

she's just not acting as the conductor, she's letting the train drive itself basically.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. That train's about to run her over

LOL!

[LittleClarkie]

48. We'll see

It might end up being one of those cartoon trains where someone's making the "choo choo" noises with their mouths as they go by on the toy track.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Thanks for the numbers. I think I will call in support

of Speaker Pelosi. Then I will call in support of Majority Leader Reid.

Maybe I'll throw in a call to Kerry as well.

[Dj13Francis]

50. Here's what I sent to the speaker:

Please, Madam Speaker, I urge you with all of the fiber of my being, to reconsider your position on the subject of impeachment. I believe the recent commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence would give you the perfect opportunity to declare publicly that the unbelievable corruption of the Bush Administration has led you to reconsider your position. I don't believe that going after Bush with impeachment proceedings would be necessarily wise, but you certainly can and should go after Cheney. There is no doubt that he has committed acts which easily meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". With your support behind HR333, the Congress would have a real chance to truly make a difference. People understand that the Administration is stonewalling investigations, and blocking any real progress on all of our key issues, but they're also holding you responsible for your unwillingness to get your hands dirty. People want you to stop playing nice, and hold them to account for what they've done. Impeachment of Cheney would yield only a fraction of the ire from the right than you would get by going after Bush, while securing the undying adoration of the 58% of people in this country who desperately want him impeached. By all accounts, Cheney seems to be leading the movement within the White House to push for war with Iran. His removal could conceivably, indeed likely, prevent a terrible disaster for our country and the world. Your unwillingness to do anything about it will not go unpunished by the left. From what I see, people have lost faith, and they will continue to tune out, give up, and succumb to hopelessness unless they are given hope. I believe you alone have the power to give them that hope. It is my sincerest wish that you will take my advice, together with the overwhelming majority of informed Americans, and take off the gloves.

Respectfully,

David Francis