Waxman Falsely Claims Impeachment Requires 2/3 Vote in House

[davidswanson]

Rep. Henry Waxman Falsely Claims Impeachment Requires 2/3 Vote in House, Scraps Constitution Before Reading It

A Waxman form letter to a constituent:

Thank you for contacting me to express your strong
opposition to the policies of the Bush White House and your
support for impeachment. I appreciate having the benefit of your
view on this issue and the opportunity to share my thinking with
you.

As you know, on November 6, 2007, Representative
Dennis Kucinich offered a privileged resolution on the House
floor to bring up H.Res. 333, which would impeach Vice
President Cheney. I joined a majority of the House in a 218-194
vote to refer the privileged resolution to the Judiciary Committee,
which is the committee of jurisdiction.

I do not take impeachment lightly. Having been elected
to the House in 1974 on the heels of the resignation of President
Nixon, I fully understand the gravity of the impeachment process.
And having served in the House during the partisan and political
campaign that pursued the impeachment of President Clinton, I
have seen the detriment of its abuse.

While I recognize the eagerness of Representative
Kucinich and other supporters of impeachment to move this
resolution swiftly, I believe the House has a constitutional and
institutional responsibility to handle such resolutions and their
underlying accusations with due process and regular order. That
is why I voted to refer the measure back to the House Judiciary
Committee for its evaluation and consideration.

In addition to concerns about process, I personally believe
that impeachment is not a successful strategy for challenging the
Bush Administration. On a practical level there aren't enough
votes in the House or the Senate to reach the 2/3 threshold for
impeachment or conviction. Furthermore, pursuing impeachment
would polarize our country at a time when Americans are
unifying across party lines to oppose the President's policies in
Iraq. It does not make sense to divert attention and focus on a
losing strategy against an administration that will be out of office
next year.

As Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform I am committed to holding this
Administration accountable for its actions. I believe the best way
to do so is by restoring the essential checks and balances that
languished during previous congresses. I am determined to fully
investigate acts of misconduct and misjudgment and learn from
the Administration's mistakes so that we can fix our policies and
prevent future abuses.

For more about my work in Congress, or to sign up for
periodic e-mail updates, please visit http://oversight.house.gov and
http://www.waxman.house.gov.

Thank you again for contacting me and please be in touch
on issues of concern.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Member of Congress.

__________

Here's Waxman's phone number: [phone]

Here's the latest polling on impeachment: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

Here's the law: Impeachment takes 50% plus 1 in the House. Conviction takes 2/3 in the Senate.

[marmar]

1. That's kind of sad and disheartening.....

I guess in the end, Henry Waxman doesn't want to cross Nancy Pelosi.

[DFW]

2. I would dare to disagree there

It was poor wording, but as a member of the House, he obviously knows that
only the Senate requires the 2/3 to convict, and the wording should have
made clear that the 2/3 requirement applied to the Senate's conviction only.

I am pretty sure his reference to the 2/3 was for the Senate only, and only
poor proofreading left in the ambiguity concerning the House.

[Dhalgren]

4. Right, congresspersons are know for their inability to use the language.

:eyes:


Have we really come to the place where the excuse, "He/She is just too stupid to say what they actually mean, so they should be given a pass" is acceptable? Henry Waxman knows exactly what he is saying and said what he said with intent. He was lying in that letter in the hopes that the reader would just say, "Gosh, I didn't know that it took 2/3 vote to bring impeachment - we'll never get that!" Bullshit...

[tigereye]

20. it's likely that an aide composed that....

[Dhalgren]

34. So our Congresspersons do not have control of the messages their

offices put out? Our Congresspersons are not only stupid and ill-educated, but they have no control over their own staffs? Our poor, poor congresspersons! They don't even know what their own offices are putting out as their positions on issues! No wonder their approval ratings are less than the Dictator's...

Jesus... :eyes:

[tigereye]

50. I suspect they don't go over these things with a fine tooth comb -

a relative of mine was a Leg. Aide to a congressman. And it depends how you parse the language.

No need for the eye- rolling if someone's opinion differs from yours.... :shrug:

[Dhalgren]

52. The eye rolling isn't for a difference of opinion,

it is because of the long, long list of excuses that Good Democrats make for their "Leaders". "The "Leader" didn't know what he/she was saying." "Someone else said it." "The "Leader" can't be held accountable for what his/her office puts out as his/her opinion." It is just unacceptable, that's all. If Democrats won't even hold their own Party officials and leaders accountable for their own statements, how can Democrats complain that Republicans don't do the same with their "Leaders"...

[Seabiscuit]

12. Agreed. The OP title is the only thing that's false and misleading.

While there was a very minor ambiguity in Waxman's wording, there's nothing ambiguous about the OP title. It's flat out false. These kinds of threads should NEVER be posted on DU.

[hlthe2b]

23. I agree with DFW... There is no doubt in my mind that Waxman

knows the constitution and the COngressional policies and procedures backwards and forwards. He was imprecise in his language... that is all.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. waking up to the idea of a one party system?

[onehandle]

5. The 2/3 part is poorly worded, but that aside here's what's important.

"pursuing impeachment would polarize our country at a time when Americans are unifying across party lines to oppose the President's policies in Iraq. It does not make sense to divert attention and focus on a losing strategy against an administration that will be out of office next year."

True.

[rucognizant]

9. Wrong!

This country hasn't been so polerized in my 68 years. I myself, ( a pacifist and gentle person, crying over dead animals in the road...) find my self visciously tongue lashing, people who are stupid or clueless. Like my encounter with the stupid old woman who almost hit me crossing the street into the drug store. If she were driving a normal car instead of the honkin SUV she couldn't see out of.......... she would have seen me I'm pretty tall! I had an opportunity to light into her at the gas staion a while later! SHe got it that it was bad to almost hit me, bUT remained clueless about the excessive fuel use of her vehicle! Apparently she bought it with her husband's insurance policy when he died, and "SHe said "I just love my SUV."
The quality of my life is so poor, anybody stupid enough to enable that at this point is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[rinsd]

16. So after nearly hitting you she shared intimate details such as how she paid for her car?

Please monkey fish elsewhere.

:eyes:

[freebrew]

49. Have you seen any of that?

Bi-partisanship, I mean? I've been watching for it, it's not there.
The Pugs aren't giving an inch on anything Democratic or progressive.
There's a journal up on the abolition of Social Security. Do you think the Pugs are going to help sustain SS?

The letter is crap, plain and simple.

Impeach today if not sooner.

[madinmaryland]

6. This is what bothers me about the letter, and it is not the 2/3's stuff:

"Furthermore, pursuing impeachment would polarize our country at a time when Americans are unifying across party lines to oppose the President's policies in Iraq. It does not make sense to divert attention and focus on a losing strategy against an administration that will be out of office next year."

..snip

:grr:

[snappyturtle]

8. Exactly. I'm fuming mad over this Dem mantra. Bush has shown us

time and time again he needs little time to destroy us bit by bit. Why give the man more time to carry his policies forward?

As far as... "diverting attention and focus on a losing stategy....." I have two points. First of all, the attention and focus of the House and the Senate is always diverse. Many issues are addressed simultaneously in both houses. Second, impeachment is not a losing stategy. Not seeking impeachment casts all those failing to do so in the complicit pile...imho.


:grr: :grr:

[SaveElmer]

7. Poor wording...but Waxman did not make the claim you are stating...

Though poorly worded his 2/3 comment clearly refers to the Senate...

And I doubt Waxman himself wrote it...most likely a staffer...

[dmosh42]

10. I actually do see that they need 2/3 for conviction....

but what irks me is his attitude of only another year and he'll be out of office. In that time maybe we can have the Iraq funding stopped, congressional subpoenas enforced, investigations completed, and a proven documented record of this administrations illegal and traitorious activites. But it looks like another year of submission by Congress.

[polmaven]

57. Part of me agrees,

but another part is very torn, ...and actually more than a little frightened. Picture the scenario of the House passing articles of impeachment for both Bush and Cheney next week.

It all then moves to the Senate, where 67 votes are needed for removal.....That is 16 Republicans and Lieberman! There are not 16 Republicans with enough gumption to think for themselves, and we know Lieberman won't.

So they are both "acquitted" after trial in the Senate. What do you think their reaction will be? A feeling of chastisement? Sorrow?......No, IMHO, they would both think that it was verification that all they are doing is right, if not downright HOLY!!!!

That is what absolutely TERRIFIES me!

[snappyturtle]

11. Something else is bothering me; it's this statement from Waxman:

"I am determined to fully investigate acts of misconduct and misjudgment and learn from
the Administration's mistakes so that we can fix our policies and prevent future abuses."

More investigating and learning....What? Prevent further abuses? Garbage. He's capitulated to the right. edit: notice there's no mention of conviction!


And, I agree with you. The 2/3 vote threshold in his words,... "for impeachment(house) or conviction (Senate)"....clearly wrong and misleading. There's no execuse. None.

[tigereye]

22. Waxman is well known for serious investigations

despite the way that the Daily Show makes fun of him.

[snappyturtle]

25. I do not doubt his ability to conduct serious investigations. However,

I don't see anything ever happening after such investigations are conducted....that is all. I think someone has gotten to him or the poor guy is plum wore out!

[tigereye]

26. I think he's in his glory - he hasn't really had a good chance to get to the

bottom of a lot of stuff until the Dems took the House.

(I can't help laughing though, when I think of the Daily Show skits about him.) ;)

[Gregorian]

13. I'll just jump to the conclusion. Conviction isn't important.

I don't care what happens to Cheney or Bush. But I do care about America.

It's not conviction we want. It's the truth. It's the facts. And that is what we get with impeachment.

With due respect- You stupid little nitwits. DO YOUR JOBS!




Edit- We also take control, when we impeach. We end the war. Isn't that what this is all about. Again- You stupid little nitwits.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. If you simply want the facts, why can't these be uncovered by congressional investigations?

:shrug:

[Gregorian]

24. They can't claim executive privilege during impeachment hearings.

All the other hearings are tame by comparison. They haven't issued a bench warrant for Harriet Miers yet. Haha. :)

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. On what do you base your assertion that they cannot claim executive privilege during impeachment?

:shrug:

[Gregorian]

38. Good question.

I'm basing that on a statement I saw on DU, of all places.

Is it incorrect? Damn, I hope not. Actually, I think they backed it up with something more than just hot air. But I'd have to rummage around to find it again.

Aha! Thanks to Google-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2240633

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Let me get this straight...

Congress impeaches...the administration does not comply with the subpoena...Congress impeaches for that...

I don't see how that is going to get them to comply with the subpoenas.

[davidswanson]

30. Because THEY IGNORE SUBPOENAS

By the dozens.

Get it?

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. What makes you beleive that they will not do the same during impeachment?

:shrug:

[davidswanson]

51. They don't have to and of course they wouldn't do any different

but we'd impeach their sorry asses

[DeeDeeNY]

15. He suffers from too much insulation

Putting aside the 2/3 error, this quote is wrong on so many levels -- "Furthermore, pursuing impeachment would polarize our country at a time when Americans are unifying across party lines to oppose the President's policies in Iraq. It does not make sense to divert attention and focus on a losing strategy against an administration that will be out of office next year." Where does he get his information from -- Fox News?

[Maraya1969]

17. It's not about "strategy" jackass. It's about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law!

What you said you'd do when you took office.

"In addition to concerns about process, I personally believe
that impeachment is not a successful strategy for challenging the
Bush Administration." Henry Waxman

[nashville_brook]

18. word.

[SaveElmer]

21. You know DU has gone in the shitter when Henry Waxman is called a jackass...

Of all people....absolutely astonishing the arrogant intolerance that prevails here...

[hlthe2b]

27. Waxman is no jackass....Engage him on this issue, folks

Tossing aside our best advocates over differences in approach is a jackass approach, however. Engage him. As was pointed out, this letter likely originated with a staffer and as such, much is likely "lost in translation."

[Maraya1969]

31. Next time I'll run my posts by you so I can get your approval.

Because we all know you are the keeper of everything that is right and wrong.

[hlthe2b]

39. You made quite a dramatic accusation, Marraya1969...

Do you really think you should not be called on it? :shrug:

Why not defend your opinion rather than attacking someone whose views run strongly counter to your own.

[Maraya1969]

43. Perhaps I could have done without the "jackass" remark.

If a local police agency said they were not going to arrest a murderer because they had another "strategy" for making him stop, (and pacifying their political allies), we'd all be up in arms. That is what it sounds like to me when these politicians talk about "strategy" The man is a mass murderer. There should be no question that he should be tried for his crimes.

[hlthe2b]

44. We all share your frustration...

Certainly, I do.... I just want to make sure we are targeting the offenders and not those who have tried hard to stand up for us...

To the extent Waxman may be holding back on impeachment (and Conyers as well), I am convinced it is the result of pressure from our very misguided DEM "leadership." I suspect strongly that blackmail (using illegally wiretap-acquired data) is the modus operandi of the BUsh* administration and to the extent some of our Dems have something to fear, they may be similarly engaging that type of tactic against those Dems who would dare stand up to the Bushies*. Perhaps threatening to take away their chairmanships, as a start? :shrug:

[Senator]

42. Perhaps, But We Followed The DC Dem "Leaders" To Get Here...

...when they decided to be the regime's firewall against impeachment.

Sorry that the truth doesn't always smell like roses.

---

[slipslidingaway]

19. Howard Zinn on Impeachment...Democracy Now Interview

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2267785


"HOWARD ZINN: I believe that impeachment is an issue that should be raised all over the country. If Congress and the Democrats are too timid to raise it, then it should be done in grassroots meetings all over the country. I understand at least thirty or forty town meetings in Vermont have called for impeachment, that local groups in various parts of the country have called for it. It’s the kind of situation that we faced on the eve of the revolution against England, where the colonial officials were not going to lead a fight against England, and so people gathered in various towns in the colonies, and they formed committees of correspondence, and they brought up the issue of independence.

We need to bring up the issue of impeachment, because when you bring up the issue of impeachment, whether it succeeds or not -- I mean, the idea of counting votes to see whether you're going to win an impeachment misses the point. To bring up impeachment would excite the country, because it would force a discussion on all the most fundamental issues on the war, on civil liberties, on the stealing of the people’s money to pay for the war and to enrich the rich. Impeachment would excite the country. And if the people in the leadership of the Democratic Party don’t realize it, then the rest of us should try to make them realize it.

I applaud Dennis Kucinich for bringing it up. I hope that John Conyers, who is head of the Judiciary Committee and who at one time showed signs of being a true progressive and a leader of and person of courage, I wish that John Conyers would stop playing with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic policy of conciliation and caution. And John Conyers, as head of the Judiciary Committee, could hold hearings and start the ball rolling on impeachment. I think everybody who is listening to this broadcast, everybody should write, talk, email their congressman, email John Conyers, and demand that they begin the impeachment process against Cheney, against Bush. I think it would galvanize the energy of the country in a good direction."

[yoyossarian]

28. What pathetic incompetent assholes we have for "public servants"...

This creep's doing ACTIVE DAMAGE EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN DAY!



Maybe I should calm down and pray to Jay-sus for guidance... who will pray with me?



Oh shit... nevermind...

T-shirts, mugs, buttons n' cards at http://cafepress.com/laughcity">Laugh City

http://steponnopets.com/peo">President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

[cali]

35. You're claiming Waxman is doing damage everyday??

If so, idiocy on DU has reached a sublime new level.

[yoyossarian]

45. It says "this creep"...

...underneath is a picture of the creep thus referenced...
This refers to the fact that strawman or waxman or whatever, and other democrats, sadly, wish to allow Generalissimo Asshat to stay in power til the end of his term...
I thought this rather obvious, but perhaps I am assuming too much intelligence on the part of my readership...
Any other questions?



T-shirts, mugs, buttons n' cards at http://cafepress.com/laughcity">Laugh City

http://steponnopets.com/peo">President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

[cali]

46. Nope. No questions.

anyone who claims that Waxman wants bushco to stay in power until the end of his term, is simply a m**on.

[yoyossarian]

48. Are you calling me a melon?

C'mere and say that to my face, Tough Guy!

Anyone who thinks Waxman is NOT aiding and abetting the fiends in the Oval Office, and completely ignoring his responsibility as a member of Congress, is WORSE than a melon! They're lemons, that's what they are! You, sir or madam, are a LEMON! So THERE!



Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

T-shirts, mugs, buttons n' cards at http://cafepress.com/laughcity">Laugh City

http://steponnopets.com/peo">President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

[ronnykmarshall]

47. It's sinks more and more everyday.

[mmonk]

33. They take the public for fools.

There are things they are hiding. Waxman's word is not good anyway.

[SaveElmer]

36. Are you going to at least acknowledge your subject line is incorrect?

Though poorly worded he clearly was talking about 2/3 required for conviction in the Senate

[ideagarden]

37. phony staffer?

What kind of phony staffer wrote that piece of tripe to a constituent? He wants to "I believe the best way to do so is by restoring the essential checks and balances that languished during previous congresses." What does that mean? Wait until the next election and let criminals get away with murder and torture? That is the poorest precedent ever!

[Senator]

41. Why The Two Faces, Mr. Chairman?

In one paragraph he poses all sage and wants "regular order," so he's proud to send the measure to committee for "evaluation and consideration."

In the very next paragraph it's a "losing strategy." Then why not vote to table it then?

If it will only "divert attention" (presumably from impotently banging their heads 40 times on a brick wall - talk about a "losing strategy"), then why waste the committee's time?

Then he claims that while "Americans are unifying ... to oppose the President's policies," somehow actually doing something about those war criminal policies -- like objecting through impeachment (win or lose) -- will be "polarizing" (whatever that means, if anything).

I've seen some examples of circular reasoning, but this drivel achieves some kind of double helix.

The only false rationalization meme he left out is "Oh no, we'd get cheney!"

Sorry Mr. Excuseman, you are enabling torture. And for that we actually DO have the votes.

===

[FlyingSquirrel]

53. IT DOES NOT MATTER that they will be out of office in a year

"Furthermore, pursuing impeachment would polarize our country at a time when Americans are unifying across party lines to oppose the President's policies in Iraq. It does not make sense to divert attention and focus on a losing strategy against an administration that will be out of office next year."

The Republicans pursued a "losing strategy" against an administration that would be out of office in less than two years. By standing up for what they pretended were their core values, they then reaped huge benefits in the 2000 Election, by focusing their base's attention on an issue ("Character Matters") that turned them out in great numbers.

More importantly, there is no guarantee that Republican dirty tricks and Democratic incompetence will not succeed in once again delivering the Presidency to Republicans - a Presidency which will then have established some very evil and unconstitutional precedents. They will be able to cry foul if impeachment is broached for something which Bush and Cheney were not impeached for. Also there is the real possibility that a dispirited Democratic base will simply give up and not turn out in great enough numbers for the general election - believing that the entire system is corrupt and that their votes simply enable the continuation of a corrupt system. Can't say that the idea has not crossed my mind.

Most importantly, the possibility still exists, however remote, that the Bush Administration will stage a coup (most of the building blocks are already in place). If this happens, it will be TOO LATE to impeach. Anyone supporting impeachment would be labeled as a dissident and dealt with in the way that Fascists deal with such people. Look at Pakistan. The time to do something is now, not after it's too late.

[everydayis911]

54. I Bet

Bush or Cheney could strangle someone right in front of camera's and nothing would happen to them.

[Apollo11]

55. It's wrong to say that the Bush-Cheney admininstration will be out of office next year (2008).

Their term of office does not run out until January 2009.

So The Waxman is incorrect on a point of fact.

[LWolf]

56. This argument doesn't fly with me.

I have not yet received replies to any of the letters I sent off.

I would predict, though, that there will be a standard form letter from each excusing non-action. Number of votes will be one excuse.

[Dr Fate]

58. Wait- I thought Waxman was playing DEM Good Cop- is he DEM Bad Cop now?

n/t