Impeachment ... "It’s our responsibility of our times, of our generation"

[RedEarth]

......I agree with former Congresswoman Holtzman..our generation owes it to our country to demand impeachment..... Prior to reading this interview, I was letting the potential political fallout of the impeachment process color my opinion. However, now that I've taken a few minutes to read the entire interview(3 pages), I'm completely convinced impeachment is an absolute necessity.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman sat on the House Judiciary Committee during 1974 to draft articles of impeachment against President Nixon, a sobering decision that she says gave her a sinking feeling in her stomach, knowing that Nixon had systematically abused the powers of the presidency. Faced with certain removal from office, Nixon resigned.

Now thirty years later, with the experience of Watergate behind her, Holtzman has written a clear, balanced, and thoughtful book: The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. We spoke to Elizabeth Holtzman about why impeachment is necessary to cement Bush’s high crimes in American history; why the mainstream media and political pundits have written impeachment off; and what Americans can do to hold George W. Bush accountable.



BuzzFlash: Do you think the American people should call for the impeachment of President Bush, or should we just let him be remembered as the worst President in American history? In other words, is impeachment necessary when his appalling legacy will follow him to the grave.

Elizabeth Holtzman: Yes, impeachment is necessary, because, with President Nixon, his resignation in the face of certain impeachment meant that you couldn’t rewrite that history. You couldn’t come back and say he really was a great president. No, he wasn’t a great president. And here you had the verdict -- a fair, responsible, bi-partisan verdict of the House Judiciary Committee.

You need to have a response to a President who engages in this kind of grave misconduct. Otherwise, the record can be rewritten. The history can be changed. You cannot change a vote. You cannot change the facts that are behind that vote. And that’s the reason President Nixon has been disgraced to this very day. And it’s not just his acts. The impeachment put those acts in a legal context, and put a ribbon around that package and said to history, to future presidents, to the American people, to the world -- we’re not going to stand for a President who abuses his power.

So now what’s the message? We’ll let someone else take that responsibility? You can’t hand off that responsibility to somebody else. It’s our responsibility of our times, of our generation. And what kind of Constitution are we going to hand down to our children and grandchildren?

BuzzFlash: What needs to happen to create a groundswell to hold the President accountable and call for impeachment?

Elizabeth Holtzman: First of all, impeachment is a very sad thing when it happens, because it means a President has done something very gravely wrong, and that is always sad to see. Whatever party you are, it is not a moment for glee. When we voted for the impeachment of Richard Nixon, it was a very somber and sad moment, because nobody wanted to see a President engaging in the conduct that warranted that result.

But how do we bring about the impeachment of George Bush? People, first of all, have to inform themselves about the Constitution and impeachment, and they can start by reading my book. They need to try to meet with other people and find other people to organize. They’ve got to start talking to their representatives in Congress and say we need to hold this President accountable. We elected you to bring accountability to Washington.

And, you know, there are organizations like “After Downing Street” http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/; “ImpeachPAC” http://www.impeachpac.org/; “Democrats.com” http://www.democrats.com/ and so forth -- which can lead people to find people who want to work with them.

I think Democrats.com is now trying to set up impeachment groups in every Congressional district in the country. So people need to start being active. This is a grassroots campaign. It has to start from the grassroots. But it can happen. Grassroots is what changed the election and changed the composition of Congress. And grassroots can bring about the impeachment of George Bush and send a message to future Presidents that we are not going to tolerate this anymore.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/045

[nam78_two]

1. K&R.nt

[rodeodance]

2. I second that emotion.!!!!!!!!

[Swamp Rat]

3. IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

:kick:

[wryter2000]

5. So

This is (I think) the third time I've asked this question. Maybe I'll get an answer this time.

So, we impeach and the Senate fails to convict. What then?

[Swamp Rat]

8. Then we'll find out 'what.'

I'd like to get the process going, as I believe he and Dickhead Cheney will eventually crack under the pressure.

[wryter2000]

11. Not good enough

What if you find out that the "what" is that he stays in power and the country is angry with the dems for putting them through another pointless exercise.

[Lerkfish]

18. there was no repercussions to republicans for failing in their impeachment

of Clinton.


get thee behind me!

[wryter2000]

23. It didn't get Clinton out of office, either. n/t

n/t

[Lerkfish]

27. That wasn't your original point.

your point was what would happen to the dems if bush remained. Implicit in your condition is that Bush remains, right? I pointed out that there would be no repercussions, and then you parrot again that Clinton wasn't removed from office.


does it get very dizzy living in your head?

:)

[wryter2000]

35. No, I'm not dizzy

I don't remember that there were repercussions against the Rs for impeaching Clinton, but the impeachment wasn't popular. I think now (without investigations first) impeachment would be seen as revenge and not in the best interests of the country.

I honestly don't see that impeaching Bush if we can't remove him from office accomplishes anything. What do you think it would accomplish, if that doesn't make you dizzy? :)

And doesn't "parrot again" suggest that I'd said that before?

[Lerkfish]

36. again, you're changing the point.

first it was there would be repercussions, then it was that Bush would stay in office, now its what would be accomplished.

I still say you're spinning around too fast.

what would be accomplished is the same thing that is accomplished when any criminal is arrested and brought to trial, whether he is convicted or not: the rule of law is intact, and the prosecutors have done their sworn duty, regardless of outcome. Their duty is to charge criminals with their crimes.

If a murderer is not convicted, does that make it wrong to try them?

Its no secret that Bush and Co is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, gross dereliction of duty and criminal malfeasance. If we do NOT impeach, we have broken our promise as citizens to uphold the constitution.

What you suggest is to merely turn the other way and allow crimes to happen because the criminals might get off.

so again, I say, get thee behind me.

[wryter2000]

37. That's not what I'm suggesting

I'm suggesting investigating him before bringing him up on charges. Isn't that what's normally done with criminals?

I don't think I'd enjoy the view from behind you.

[Lerkfish]

42. whatever. He's publicly admitted to breaking the law

an admission of guilt in warrantless wiretapping, and flagrantly violating the geneva convention. approving torture.
what's to investigate? he's committed these crimes openly, admitted them in front of the world.


the REAL question is why are you so adamantly defending the criminal?

[Swamp Rat]

43. I am sick and tired of people ASSUMING that "impeach Bush now" precludes a trial.

:eyes:

And yes, he's already publicly admitted to breaking the law.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Lerkfish]

45. and I'm tired of people not understanding that impeachment IS a trial

maybe brush up on your constitution?

[Swamp Rat]

47. Yes

I read it several times this year even though I am struggling just to survive here in NOLA, so I expect others can find the time too.

Btw, my comment above was NOT directed at you.

[Lerkfish]

48. sorry, I thought it was that other guy again, mea culpa

[bobbolink]

39. Answer #1: You prefer we have a repeat of the Iran/Contra result?

[Vincardog]

9. In that case the Senate has demonstrated that we are no longer a country of laws.

WE will have confirmed that we are in fact a tin pot dictatorship.

[wryter2000]

12. And that fixes the country exactly how?

I'm in favor of investigating the you-know-what out of him until even Barney and Pickles abandon him. At that point, when we have the support of enough Republicans in the Senate to kick him out, we impeach him.

[Vincardog]

16. Then why do you seem to dwell on this "WE CAN'T IMPEACH HIM" meme?

There is plenty of evidence to draw up the articles of impeachment now.
The investigations and hearings can go on for months.

By the time it is over even pickles will vote to remove the sorry SOB, just to make it stop.

Why do people act as if everyone calling for impeachment want us to do it Before the Democratic Congress is in session and then hold an immediate UP or DOWN vote?

That is what the RepubliCANTS want to happen. I want the hearings to be detailed graphic and complete. I want the Gonzales torture memos gone over in greater detail.
I want every evil sycophant that aided the evil cabal impeached as well and prohibited from ever poisoning our political process again.

[wryter2000]

19. Actually, I don't say that

I think before the election, it was necessary to take that talking point away from them. Remember, they were campaigning on "they'll impeach the president!" I think it's perfectly possible for Pelosi to say, "Now that I know what I know, I think it is appropriate to impeach him." Or, she can simply let the right people, say John Conyers, call for impeachment.

What I don't think is smart is "impeach him now!" It's like "hang him now and have the trial later." Once the truth comes out and we stand a chance of getting enough republican support to convict him, then we impeach him.

There are probably a few folks here who are against impeachment under any circumstances, but I think you'll find that most of us non-impeachment types only want to have investigations first.

On edit: I think you and I are in perfect agreement.

[Swamp Rat]

44. Straw man

"There are probably a few folks here who are against impeachment under any circumstances, but I think you'll find that most of us non-impeachment types only want to have investigations first."

WHO doesn't want hearings first? WHO thinks we can impeach a president without trials? WHO

I am so tired of this inane straw man argument. :eyes:

[Lerkfish]

46. yes, its SOOOOO transparent.

its not a straw man, its an intentional muddying of the waters.

[Usrename]

38. Then we will know who in the Senate to vote out of office.

If impeachment fails in the Senate, then we have a better roadmap of how to proceed in order to begin fixing this country. Or are you one those folks with their head in the sand that thinks everything is okie dokie?

Impeachment is designed to be a political exercise. That is the whole purpose of impeachment. In this case, it would help discredit their entire agenda in Iraq, and more specifically, the idiotic Bush Doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later.

[wryter2000]

4. When she said that

There was a chance Nixon would be removed from office. He knew that, so he resigned.

[Bobbieo]

7. What is the number of senators needed for an impeachment win?

[bluerum]

10. two thirds in the senate,,,

[wryter2000]

13. A simple majority in the House

We can impeach him in the House with a simple majority. To convict in the Senate (and remove him from office), we need a two thirds majority. I don't know if that's 66 or 67, to tell you the truth.

And honestly, can we depend on Lieberman to vote to convict?

I think after investigations, when the reality of his crimes becomes public and he's a hazard to any Republican who supports him, we may get to that number. That's the time to impeach him and take the trash out of the White House.

[MrCoffee]

20. 67 votes in the Senate to convict. n/t

[RedEarth]

6. .......An IMPORTANT EXCERPT from this interview.........

BuzzFlash: A lot of political analysts, and even incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have said that impeachment is not where the Democrats are going to put their energy or make their priority. Although legally there is a case to impeach the President, a lot of political observers don’t think it’s the right thing to do -- and I’m emphasizing this word -- politically. Where is your opinion in terms of the legal argument for impeachment versus the political strategy to do so?

Elizabeth Holtzman: We can’t start and end the conversation with what political pundits have to say. First of all, our generation -- the American people living right now -- have a responsibility for preserving and maintaining our Constitution. Are we going to allow it to be shredded by a president? Then, if this president can get away with starting a war based on lies, with breaking the law willfully, what’s the next president going to do? What’s the precedent that’s started here?

Secondly, it really doesn’t matter what the pundits say, and it doesn’t really matter what members of Congress have to say about impeachment. If the American people want impeachment, it’s going to happen. The real problem is that the mainstream media won’t take the issue seriously. They don’t want to spend the time to understand it. And they’ve decided it’s not going to happen, so they’re not going to write about it.

The consequence is that many Americans don’t understand that the framers of this Constitution 200 years ago understood that there would be a Richard Nixon, and they understood that there would be a George Bush. And they said: American people, you have a remedy. We’re giving you a remedy. It’s 200 years old. It’s called impeachment. That’s designed to remove a President who threatens our Constitution and subverts our democracy.

Watergate didn’t start because the Congress wanted impeachment. Left to its own devices, Congress never would have done anything on impeachment. Left to its own devices, the press never would have investigated, except for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The rest of the press was completely unconcerned on the subject. They didn’t care. They weren’t aggressive. But the American people understand that this is their Constitution, this is their democracy, this is their country, and they have the power to do something about it.

[porphyrian]

14. Impeachment is just a stop on the justice train about to run over this administration.

I can hardly wait.

[MrCoffee]

15. Impeachment - "it is not a moment for glee."

We would do well to remember this. There are a great many cries of "Impeachment Now" going up in here, but in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, WE have to respect the Constitution. Respect for the Constitution means respect for the offices created by it (not necessarily the officholder).

We can not and we must not rush to impeach without building an impenetrable wall of evidence through investigations. Our sole driving motivation for impeachment must be respect for the Constitution, and respect for the Presidency. The Constitution is too important to turn the sobering, solemn, and tragic process of removing a corrupt, vile, and evil man from office.

[porphyrian]

17. There already exists the evidence necessary for impeachment.

Now, we only need to reveal the truth.

[MrCoffee]

21. If that were true, he'd be gone by now.

[Vincardog]

24. aWoL has repeatedly and publicly bragged about committing high crimes and mis demeanors.

How many crimes against humanity and nature does it take for you to be convinced?

White phosphorus and Depleted Uranium weapons are banned and illegal.
Torture is illegal.
starting an illegal war of aggression is a crime against humanity.

[MrCoffee]

32. your three points (and i totally agree with them) are conjecture

let me be clear, i want chimpy gone as much as anyone on this board. i just want to be certain that when the hammer falls on his head, it does not miss.

i could see your three and raise you three more.

the illegal wiretapping in violation of FSIA
Cheney's energy task force meetings
Signing statements

i think (operative word being "think") that we have more than enough reason to tar and feather the bastards. but that's not good enough, not by a country mile. we must have the proof that investigations will provide.

[Vincardog]

41. Let the investigation begin. As soon as the DemocratIC congress is sworn in

Let them be televised
Let them be detailed
Let them be through
LEt them result in the total unmasking and discrediting all that is evil and NeoConservative.

[porphyrian]

25. What makes you think that?

The truth has not been governing public opinion lately. However, things are changing.

Here's a fistfull of threads related to impeachment in no particular order:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=246605

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=250619

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=248617

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=247986

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=247992

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=245284

[MrCoffee]

28. if a series of editorials and blogs were all it took to convict someone

i'd move out of this country yesterday.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[MrCoffee]

30. easy tiger.

i read each of the posts you provided in support of your argument. 4 of them are from a site that collects editorials, one is an email, and one is from New Zealand. i didn't ask you to be my teacher there, sensei.

i'm sorry you didn't bother reading your own sources. maybe if you actually did some research you could come up with something substantive to back up your claim. if you thought i was acting like a dick, i'm sorry you so grossly misinterpreted what i was saying.

you posted a series of op-ed pieces that say we should impeach. i said that if op-eds were all it took to convict, i want no part of it. if that's being a dick, well, we're clearly not going to have much else to talk about.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[MrCoffee]

33. they are your sources when you use them to prove YOUR point

which you did.

[porphyrian]

34. "Here's a fistfull of threads related to impeachment in no particular order:"

What school taught you that this statement suggests those links were proving ANY point? You have, however, proven mine.

Edit: typo

[OnyxCollie]

50. Read these.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/releases/conincrisisarticle.pdf

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/crisis/fullreport.pdf

Edited to add the version of Constitution in Crisis that includes domestic surveillance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. The problem is that none of the evidence we all know about

has been revealed before a Congressional Comittee. Remember, this is an organic process. Once all that crap we are well familiar with goes before the committes, UNDER OATH, then we can start to talk about it

Now, it also has to come from the people, so start pestering your congress critter on a regular basis, and ONXE the hearings start, remnd htem of what they have found so far.

I also fear we do have the majority, perhaps, in the house for Impeachment, but in order to get the supermajority in the Senate we will need quite a bit of outrage for even 9 republicans to cross the aisle on that one.

[madokie]

22. You bet we do,

we have to do it no matter what

[mia]

26. Impeachment is the only way to begin to bring honor back

to our country and to begin to make amends for all of the harm brought on by this presidency. Bush has taken all of the American people down with his purposeful and dishonest actions. If we let him slide for such willful deceit, history will ask why we stood by and let it happen.

[Kurovski]

49. Kick...

the bastards out.

ITMFA.

[omega minimo]

51. "Need a response to a President who engages in...misconduct. Otherwise, the record can be rewritten"

"....he’s turned away from carrying out his basic responsibilities as President. So in some cases, he puts himself above the law, and in some cases, he runs away from the law."


How is that not enough for people to get over their word games about whether impeachment is warranted or not?

The. President. Broke. The. Law. And came out and said yes he did and he will continue to (while waiting for the Repugs to rewrite the laws to make his crimes legal.......) This administration is in violation of the law.


What was Ms. Pelosi's/Dems' purpose in tossing out that "off the table" comment? The investigative committees are being empaneled now. Her comment sure served to get Democrats (and DU) buzzing about this, didn't it?







“Yes, impeachment is necessary, because, with President Nixon, his resignation in the face of certain impeachment meant that you couldn’t rewrite that history. You couldn’t come back and say he really was a great president. No, he wasn’t a great president. And here you had the verdict -- a fair, responsible, bi-partisan verdict of the House Judiciary Committee. You need to have a response to a President who engages in this kind of grave misconduct. Otherwise, the record can be rewritten. The history can be changed. You cannot change a vote. You cannot change the facts that are behind that vote. And that’s the reason President Nixon has been disgraced to this very day. And it’s not just his acts. The impeachment put those acts in a legal context, and put a ribbon around that package and said to history, to future presidents, to the American people, to the world -- we’re not going to stand for a President who abuses his power. So now what’s the message? We’ll let someone else take that responsibility? You can’t hand off that responsibility to somebody else. It’s our responsibility of our times, of our generation. And what kind of Constitution are we going to hand down to our children and grandchildren?” --Elizabeth Holtzman

Elizabeth Holtzman has been a US Congresswoman, the District Attorney of Brooklyn, and was Member of House panel that impeached Richard Nixon. Dec. 12, on AM KCTC 1320, Ms. Holtzman said,

“If you’d asked me in December of 1972, after he’d just been re-elected in a landslide, whether to impeach Nixon, I would have said, "For what?"

The Watergate hearings began in mid-1973 and the rest is history.


http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/045

Elizabeth Holtzman: President Bush should be impeached because he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, as set forth in our Constitution, and because his abuses of power are so serious, and so subvert our democracy and so threaten it, that action has to be taken to preserve our democracy and hand it down to future generations intact.

BuzzFlash: No one is better placed or qualified to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush than you. You were a former congresswoman. You were a former Brooklyn district attorney. Most importantly, you were a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon.

You lay out the following reasons for impeachment:
1) the offense of wiretapping surveillance in defiance of the law;
2) the offence of lying to induce America to support a war;
3) the offense of reckless indifference to the lives and welfare of American troops;
4) the offense of torture in violation of U.S. and international laws and treaties;
and 5) covering up the war deceptions with the leak of misleading classified information.

Is the most egregious offense to warrant impeachment Bush’s illegal wire-tapping, breaking the law repeatedly, not just once?. It’s perhaps the most clear cut argument for impeachment.

Elizabeth Holtzman: No, I think what you have is a President who has repeatedly and in various ways put himself above the rule of law. And then secondly, as with the handling of the war in Iraq, he failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed. In other words, he’s turned away from carrying out his basic responsibilities as President. So in some cases, he puts himself above the law, and in some cases, he runs away from the law.

<snip>

BuzzFlash: A lot of political analysts, and even incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have said that impeachment is not where the Democrats are going to put their energy or make their priority. Although legally there is a case to impeach the President, a lot of political observers don’t think it’s the right thing to do -- and I’m emphasizing this word -- politically. Where is your opinion in terms of the legal argument for impeachment versus the political strategy to do so?

Elizabeth Holtzman: We can’t start and end the conversation with what political pundits have to say. First of all, our generation -- the American people living right now -- have a responsibility for preserving and maintaining our Constitution. Are we going to allow it to be shredded by a president? Then, if this president can get away with starting a war based on lies, with breaking the law willfully, what’s the next president going to do? What’s the precedent that’s started here?

Secondly, it really doesn’t matter what the pundits say, and it doesn’t really matter what members of Congress have to say about impeachment. If the American people want impeachment, it’s going to happen. The real problem is that the mainstream media won’t take the issue seriously. They don’t want to spend the time to understand it. And they’ve decided it’s not going to happen, so they’re not going to write about it. The consequence is that many Americans don’t understand that the framers of this Constitution 200 years ago understood that there would be a Richard Nixon, and they understood that there would be a George Bush. And they said: American people, you have a remedy. We’re giving you a remedy. It’s 200 years old. It’s called impeachment. That’s designed to remove a President who threatens our Constitution and subverts our democracy.

Watergate didn’t start because the Congress wanted impeachment. Left to its own devices, Congress never would have done anything on impeachment. Left to its own devices, the press never would have investigated, except for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The rest of the press was completely unconcerned on the subject. They didn’t care. They weren’t aggressive. But the American people understand that this is their Constitution, this is their democracy, this is their country, and they have the power to do something about it.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org /
http://www.impeachpac.org /
http://www.democrats.com /
http://www.rense.com/general73/constt.htm

The rense link has an interview with Ms. Holtzman and Ray McGovern

[bobbolink]

52. Excellent article! I so wish all USians would take it to heart.

Thanks! :applause: