Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

A private off-the-record meeting was held on Capitol Hill on Wednesday that included House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Judiciary Committee Member and advocate for opening Cheney impeachment hearings Robert Wexler, and several other committee members, activists, staffers, and former staffers from the Watergate days. I wasn't there, so I'm free to talk about what happened.

Wexler proposed opening impeachment hearings on Cheney. Conyers committee staffer Perry Appelbaum laid out instead a schedule for non-impeachment hearings over the coming 11 months. Conyers' notion is to hold non-impeachment hearings on "the imperial presidency" and run out the clock. I guess that would be sort of like a dozen police officers paying a non-arresting visit to the home of a mass murderer. Seriously? An "imperial" president, and you don't impeach him, and you don't retire or commit suicide? This baffles me.

Now, there are topics that have not been touched in congressional investigations over the past 12 months, such as the Iraq war lies. But a lot of the other topics have already been gone over, just absent the I word. What will differentiate the new non-impeachment hearings from the past year's worth of non-impeachment hearings? Of course, getting witnesses to show up and testify would be a change, but without impeachment, nothing will compel any witnesses to testify who have previously refused.

One of the big topics this group wants to go after is the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and - contrary to the position expressed today by the Democratic leadership - this group was in agreement that Congress should vote on contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. But, even understanding that nothing was going to budge on that any time soon, most of the Congress Members present still refused to back Wexler's proposal.

The chief opponent of impeachment hearings was not Conyers. It was Nadler. Nadler argued strongly against any use of the I word. He argued that Congress should focus on passing bills, even though they will be vetoed, and then pass them again next year.

Arguing for keeping open the possibility of impeachment hearings developing out of the non-impeachment hearings was Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. Daniel Ellsberg was also among those backing impeachment hearings.

Conyers and some subgroup plan to take their proposal for non-impeachment imperial abuse hearings to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to request her blessing. She is, of course, most likely to share Nadler's position. She may have given Nadler his position, or perhaps it originated with Hillary Clinton, but it sounds most likely that Nadler has simply been speaking for himself: he honestly opposes impeachment hearings, even for emperors.

Nadler's constituents have been among the most dedicated activists, many of them repeatedly sitting in at his office for impeachment and going to jail. One group has just set up a website solely to allow people all over the country to Email Nadler on this issue: http://asknadler2impeach.org

Nadler chairs the most relevant subcommittee and could open Cheney impeachment hearings in that subcommittee tomorrow if he chose to do so. The full House voted to send articles of impeachment on Cheney to the Judiciary Committee last November.

Wednesday's meeting was handicapped, of course, because no-one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing impeachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities, bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary Clinton), or both.

Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.

When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

And we wouldn't wait until the next election to reward members of Congress who put impeachment back in the Constitution. The minute Pelosi or Conyers or Nadler opens the door to impeachment hearings, every activist organization in this country and around the world that works on behalf of peace or justice or the rule of law will flood them with flowers, donations, volunteers, and support.

And if Fox News says one word, we will shut it down.

[aquart]

1. Jerry's wrong. The usurped power has to be challenged.

If not, it will be the Democrat we have to impeach.

[aquart]

4. Signed and emailed. I can't believe it.

[cmkramer]

80. Here's the problem

Impeachment of either Bush or Cheney while not a lead pipe cinch, is doable in the House because all they need is a simple majority. Conviction is another matter because we don't have the votes in the Senate. Even if every single Democrat - including Lieberman and the conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson - were to vote yes, we'd need to get Republican votes. I don't believe that the pro-impeachment crowd understands that.

Let me put it this way. Let's say my scenario of impeachment in the House and a strict party line vote in the Senate with every Democrat (including Lieberman) voting to convict while every Republican voting to acquit happens. Bush (or Cheney for that matter) is acquitted. Would you be satisfied with that?

[Sam Ervin jret]

100. If it were a true fair open complete hearing of the details? YES

And let the chips fall where they may. my feeling is, anyone after hearing the list of crimes against these two who did not vote for impeachment and the for conviction, would be either be voted out or is beyond getting out. Do you know any republican right now who is beyond getting OUT?

[truedelphi]

116. Sen. Hagel (R) is no fan of Bush.

And there are a few others.

Also, by the time it got to the Senate, hopefully so much bright light would be shining on the deficiencies and outright illegalities, or in other words, high crimes and misdemeanors, that someother senators would rise to the occassion.

The same argument against the notion of impeachment was being made in the summer of 1974.

In the end, it was the Republicans who had a conscience who were the decisive factor.

[alllyingwhores]

138. Actually...most everyone who advocates impeachment is satisfied with that.

If you think the public will think less or vote against the Dems because they didn't get a conviction in the Senate, you're wrong.

Quite the opposite--the majority of the public would overwhelmingly support Dems in the next election for showing one ounce of backbone by forcing the criminals to testify and actually expose a fraction of their lies and corruption during an impeachment process--THAT'S THE POINT.

And furthermore, by the Dems refusing to proceed with the process that they are required to follow under our Constitution (or what's left of it), they only stand to lose public support and votes--being accurately perceived as part of the same corrupt and criminal system.

It's simply not possible that Nadler is that stupid--he's obviously as corrupt and controlled as Pelosi by the Bushites.

[cmkramer]

145. I'm not talking about the public

I'm talking about leftist activists and bloggers. Are you really telling me that the day after a Bush acquittal they wouldn't be all over whining about how the "Democrats sold us out again"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. I know, defending the Constitution is a lefty thing

so be it... guilty as charged. Impeach the bastards

[roguevalley]

125. Nadler. He's that no neck windbag from back east, right?

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Nadler is my rep, andI am VERY disappointed in his actions.

I intend to let him know this.

[loudsue]

28. When is he up for re-election? Can we get rid of him? n/t

[lurky]

39. Every two years -- he's a congressman.

He's been in office 18 years, he's very popular, has a safe district, and he is an actual liberal with the voting record to show for it.

Who knows what made him do this. Maybe someone was putting pressure on him?

My personal speculation: The Democratic establishment (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) has long assumed that HRC would be the nominee in 2008. If Bush is being impeached at the same time a Clinton is running for president, it will be spun by the Republicans as payback for what was done to Bill. It would raise the whole Lewinsky scandal again, turn the campaign into the biggest slime-fest in history, and possibly cost the Dems the election. Since Nadler is part of the same New York delegation as HRC, maybe he was acting on behalf of the junior senator from NY?

Just idle speculation on my part, but I believe Clinton is behind the whole "Off the table" thing.

[elleng]

48. Well lurky,

that sounds like a decent rationale. Remember that the Rs played impeachment game vs. bill c. as payback for NIXON?

Can anyone think of anything else?

[Seabiscuit]

54. I think perhaps your "idle speculation" just hit the nail on the head.

Makes sense to me.

[kenfrequed]

63. I have long suspected it...

After all the last thing her campaign would want is to be problematized by a parallel with her husbands impeachment. Her presidential candidacy has been more a problem to the Democratic party than most are willing to admit.

[Irishonly]

75. I Had Never Thought About It

It makes sense. I wish it didn't, but it does.

[earth mom]

114. Why am I not surprised by this?

As I've said before, Hillary will do ANYTHING to become president. ANYTHING. :puke:

[Cleita]

120. I believe the Clintons are too. All the more reason not to

have Hillary be the nominee. I always felt too that to impeach Bush/Cheney would put Pelosi in the Oval Office and Hillary couldn't claim to be history's first female President. Just MHO for any Hillarybot who wants to attack.

[alllyingwhores]

139. I can't accept that Clinton and her advisors are that stupid.

That's complete idiocy--by the Dems and/or Hillary refusing to hold the idiot child's criminal administration accountable, they become the same as...oh I don't know, McCain. So, the race is dead even and Clinton has a much greater chance of losing the selection-brilliant strategy.

[orleans]

36. please let him know that even though i am from illinois *i* am very

disappointed in his non-action as well.

get someone to run against him. that might get him off his fucking ass--especially if that someone comes out and lets people know they are running to do a job nadler is REFUSING to do--and they will do the right thing by the people and the constitution!

(these fucking congressfolk are sitting back on their collective lazy ass, mulling over their great health care, and pensions, and FIDDLING with themselves as the constitution burns)

yes, please tell him that from me. thanks.

[N4457S]

108. Look...

...there's not going to be an impeachment when we just had Pelosi standing in front of the cameras with Paulson and the rest of the Bushies. It doesn't make sense.

This will NOT happen. The war is on the downhill slide, we're heading into what's likely to be a very bad recession and you want to impeach Bush?

You're nuts!

[alllyingwhores]

140. What...you want to hold criminal accountable for mass murder? That is nuts!

[orleans]

144. and you're fucking RUDE! you've been here one day and you're

calling people names??? get a clue.

i wasn't TALKING TO YOU ANYWAY!

[calimary]

134. Please let him know - that sense of DEEP disappointment stretches

all the way to California.

This SUCKS.

So it's okay with him, then, to leave all of bush/cheney's crimes - high crimes and misdemeanors - on the books, to leave them to stand - unquestioned, unchallenged, like they were no big deal really. Is he ready for the NEXT bush/cheney - who WILL seize on all of that and turn around to Nadler and everybody else and thumb their noses and say - "WELL???? You didn't do anything about it. Must not be illegal then, 'eh? Go sit down and SHUT UP." Does he REALLY want to leave such precedent set - in concrete - if we do not pursue justice on this? REALLY????? This goes WAY into the long term past any Hillary presidency, past any Obama presidency, or anybody coming after them, into history, for as long as America lasts. That's a signal I certainly wouldn't want to leave behind if I were he. I wouldn't want it on my conscience OR on my soul.

[EFerrari]

3. I guess we haven't had enough yet.

Thank you, David.

:kick:

[AnOhioan]

5. I have no faith in Speaker Pelosi....

I cannot understand what she thinks.

[BlueJac]

66. Nancy is bought and paid for...........

She must fucking go.

[focusfan]

77. i agree something is going on with her

something is up why she won't do the right thing and impeach
those crooks.

[N4457S]

109. But...

...she won't.

And she comes from a safe district. So do Steny Hoyer and Jerrold Nadler.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

So there.

[sallyseven]

92. No because your from Ohio

thats why you can't figure it out. She thinks that the democrats should not tip over what they can't do. Not enough time. Republican senators will never vote for impeachment. They voted against it for Bill even though they had the votes to do it. Get real.

[Sam Ervin jret]

101. What kind of rip bullshit answer is that?

All the Democrats seem to be doing as of late is tipping over themselves. Not enough time/ well who's fault is that? How long? How long have people been telling her? You and your smart ass, only we smart California not you middle America people can't understand, answer is a disgrace.

To you.

To your opinion, right or wrong. Make your point do not insult the intellect of another posting Du er.

Not while I'm reading.

Shame on you and NANCY.

[N4457S]

111. That's Right...

...there isn't enough time. Even two years isn't enough, under these circumstances with all that's going on. There would have to be a Special Prosecutor, committee hearings, a test vote, adequate media coverage, etc.

I don't think it's worth the bandwidth. It won't happen.

[AnOhioan]

130. Should I go stand in corner as well?......

Your opinion is duly noted, and given all the credence it deserves. Now where I did put the circular file??

[Quantess]

143. Don't worry, AnOhian

I lived in San Francisco and I voted for Pelosi every time. Yet I don't "get" her, either. She's been a huge disappointment as Madame Speaker.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. How ironic! The man who once smelled fascism works to scuttle impeachment

I'll never forget in 2000 when BushCo dispatched its goons to Florida to stop the vote count how Nadler bravely said he detected a "whiff of fascism" in their tactics. Perhaps the air is so thick with it now that Rep. Nadler can no longer think straight.

[KoKo]

9. Nadler attended the Conyers "Basement Hearings" on Election Violations after '04...

but there were rumors at the time that he was a bloviator. Who runs Nadler...look to the lobbyists and funders who put him in the House...and that will answer why he's dragging his heels. :shrug:

[orleans]

38. i'm looking--here, you look too

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000939&cycle=2006

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000939&cycle=2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00000939&cycle=2008

[defendandprotect]

41. Wow-!! Really surprised about Nadler--!!! I've been a fan and this is very disappointing ...

Have I been wrong about him in the past?
I think I have to find out now -- !!!

Disgusting!!!

[babylonsister]

7. Very disappointing. And he's selling out partially because of Clinton?

:banghead:

[EFerrari]

12. I said months ago that she doesn't want the I word floating around

while she tries to look presidential.

[babylonsister]

30. This makes me ill. nt

[mopinko]

8. i just can't believe how many of these clowns threw the I word around

on the campaign trail and now cannot spell I.

[Junkdrawer]

10. I remember when Boxer questioned Ohio, Nadler bad mouthed paper ballots...

Got my attention...

[Alexander]

11. Nadler seems pretty reasonable - maybe Bushco has dirt on him?

C'mon, Jerry - listen to Robert Wexler!

[bvar22]

94. Its NOT Bushco that has the dirt!

This pressure is coming from Conservatives (DLC) INSIDE the Democratic Party.....the same ones who helped the Republicans build the Unitary Executive and helped stack the Supreme Court with AntiLABOR Corporatists.
They don't want anybody rocking the boat they helped build.

If a REAL televised trial were to be held in the Senate that exposed our hopelessly corrupt Two Party system, The People might demand REAL, Substantive changes to the MONEY MACHINE.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Alexander]

102. So do you think Nadler's DLC, or being blackmailed by the DLC?

I agree with you completely about the DLC, but do you have any evidence regarding Nadler?

[bvar22]

121. Its not "Blackmail" per se.

It is more like arm twisting Power Politics.

I witnessed the DCCC (the power arm of the DLC under Rham) rig a primary election in Minnesota in 2005.

The Conservative DLC basically came to a district in Minnesota that already had a popular Progressive "Grassroots" candidate who had been campaigning locally for over a year.
They injected their well financed CorpoFriendly candidate into a local Primary.
They spent enough money from national donations to steamroll the local progressive.
If THAT wasn't enough, the DCCC contacted the the local small businesses that were supporting the local candidate and told them to STOP, AND to match their previous donations to the grassroots candidate to their approved candidate. If they refused, they were threatened with economic retaliation and a closed door to the reps office in the future.

There are a number of different ways that the Power Establishment can apply pressure to Representatives who have to run for re election every two years.
With the DLC, it is MONEY and control of the Democratic Party Primaries.

They can also block legislation from ever reaching the floor, or make sure your earmarks get deleted from bills, or withhold seats on Power committees if you don't play ball.

Look at what Pelosi has been able to do to Kucinich.

[tbyg52]

122. Thank you for contributing to my political education.

:hi:

I haven't given any money to anyone but individual candidates and Dr. Dean for a long time. When they ask, I use their postage-paid envelope to send my opinion of them back.

[truedelphi]

117. The substance of your post is UNIMPEACHABLE. n/t

[donkeyotay]

126. Excellent post. Change is great so long as everything stays the same.

For instance, try and get a respectable democrat to talk about getting money out of politics. Ha. They have no intention of making real reforms that would return the balance of power to the people of this country.

Great quote and pic of Wellstone, the conscience of the senate, now silent.

[pacalo]

13. Someone from the DNC called for a donation & I refused

because of the no-impeachment issue & because Congress doesn't stand up to these criminals.

Just as you wisely said, I refuse to "reward them for not taking the Constitution & the rule of law seriously".

[riqster]

89. I do the same thing

..plus, every email I get from any Dem organiation gets a reply, stating that ball of my donations have been re-allocated to Dennis Kucinich's campaign. If they want some money, they can join him in his call for impeachment.

I have sticks for the Eeyore Donkeys like Pelosi, and carrots for the kicking donkeys like Kooch.

[Dr.Phool]

I'll be a Democrat for one more week.

Just until my primary ballot is counted (or not) in Florida's primary election. Then, I'm switching to "No Party Affiliation".

And I've been a Dem since my first election in '72. I never thought that a party could deteriorate so far, so fast.

[frog92969]

17. 3 for me.

I can't reward this behavior.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

83. This is really important.

You must, MUST send a copy of your registration change to DNC big wigs like Howard Dean, Rahm Emmanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid -- and you must tell them exactly why you are doing this.

They need to see that there are real consequences that effect their party because of the Democrats refusal to act on criminal activity by an administration.

I mentioned on another thread that I, too, am only hanging on to my party affiliation by a slender thread. This next election cycle will tell me whether I stay a Dem or become and Independent.

And if I do make the switch, damn straight I will be letting every Dem I can why the Party forced me to make this move.

[jwirr]

86. I think they see some of the consequences when they send out

their mailers and telephone calls. I have been a contributer (even sometimes beyond my means) since 1960. I have yet to donate to anyone this year. They must be feeling the shortage.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

95. Let'em know WHY...

otherwise, they may think you're not giving strictly because of financial reasons.

[Dr.Phool]

115. Good idea.

I'll do it. And I know a few more who will also.

[donkeyotay]

127. The real consequence is that by abandoning us they get big corporate bucks.

I don't think they give a damn that I withheld my $50 when they can get millions from defense, banking, pharma, etc.

[gateley]

K&R. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. The State Of The Union

Nobody is responsible for anything. Just fucking great... :mad:

[Chisox08]

73. The State of the Union is a LIE!

Denis Kucinich had it right when he said that. Bush's actions are impeachable. If our Congress doesn't want to do its job and hold the President accountable for his actions then we need to vote them out of office come November.

[stillcool]

15. Thanks..

unbelievable. Truly.

[KaryninMiami]

16. How utterly depressing and disappointing.

There's got to be something we can do en masse to express our discontent-- although one would think that Wexler showing up with 200,000+ signatures would be worth some type of consideration. And you are so correct- every peace and justice activist group - and millions more whom I know are out there-would flood them with support. Plus, it would be one way to unify the party - I truly believe we are the majority on tis issue and at the moment, the party needs something (besides throwing the GOP Out in 08) to rally behind (and it would perhaps diffuse the Hillary-Obama-Bill circus for a while).

Maybe we can get Edwards to outwardly support impeachment? It's a risk but I think one that would be worth taking. Especially today after the story broke about the lies that led us to war in Iraq which I'm happy to see, is making it to the mainstream media (or at least it was on cable tonight- not sure about national news). Just a thought. Edwards has nothing to loose at this point...

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Nadler. WTF?

Let's show him our displeasure and all of us send him a box of twinkies.

[lurky]

40. Ooh, that's mean!

:evilgrin:

[burythehatchet]

19. I would imagine that an impeachment hearing is the last thing Mrs. Clinton wants as well

I wonder if Gerry supports her.

[N4457S]

112. Right Again!

It's just about the worst scenario I can think of for a Democrat seeking the votes of registered Independents.

For that reason alone, it won't happen.

[Greyhound]

20. That this is even a an issue just indicates how far gone our nation is.

George Bush is exactly what the impeachment clause was written for! The fact that the whores in DC are successfully blocking it shows just how pathetic we, as a nation, have become.

"Fat and stupid is no way to go through life"

[intheflow]

21. "Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election."

David, you're talking sense again. :eyes: Everyone knows you can't mix politics and sense!

:rofl:

Really, though, I like the "whoever impeaches wins" history lesson you've included here. This should become a standard talking point in persuading Dems toward impeachment. Thank you for that. :hi:

[FreepFryer]

22. It's pretty simple. If impeachment is pursued, we'll have ourselves another LIHOP/MIHOP tragedy.

I think Nadler, et. al. know EXACTLY what kind of criminals Bush/Cheney are, and think they should wait out the clock, avoid emboldening any faction of the GOP's support by pressing impeachment, use the continuing abysmal record of the Bush administration for campaigning - and at the same time, hope that the Bush administration ends without another tragedy like Katrina or 9/11, but with a Bush emigration to Paraguay.

It's blackmail, pure-and-simple.

[rhett o rick]

23. These bastards will get off without any punishment. Cheney will move to Dubai. nm

[FreepFryer]

25. "Nice country you have here. Be a real shame if somethin' were to happen to it..." -- Dick Cheney

That is, in essence, the distillation of the GOP campaign strategy painting the Democrats as 'weak on terror'.

[rhett o rick]

26. Democrats are weak on terror, bush/cheney terror. nm

[FreepFryer]

27. A GOP Congressman was shown to be funding Al Qaeda. Imagine what a GOP Executive is capable of. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

42. Rather, impeachment would strengthen the interest in justice and

bringing these criminals to accountability ---

Letting this pass as if nothing has happened is insane --- and unjust --- and a threat to the FUTURE of our country and our Constitution.

Even if we say these are the most insanely criminal people who have ever come to power, impeachment still has to go forward or we will live our futures as cowards who bring further destruction upon ourselves.

[halobeam]

81. exactly, that is why traditionally going for impeachment results in winning elections.

How many Dems are going to stay Dem as opposed to "no party affiliation" when impeachment is necessary and their own party won't do it.

That is what breaks the party.

[WritersBlock]

46. Y'know what, that really is the only thing that makes sense of the Dems' actions.

And it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[FreepFryer]

61. That's the conclusion I came to, at least. Occam's Razor, and all that. (n/t)

[burythehatchet]

64. and so give in to the terrorists' every demand? I don't think so

[kenfrequed]

70. Uhm

Ahistorical and nonsensical strategizing based on thinking that we are forever living in 1994; that is all that this is.

I have observed that most politicians seem to end up being victims of their first elections. That is, they assume and project the strategy of their first victory onto the strategy of the party at large, regardless of the changing times or the differences in demographics.

Democrats seem unwilling to face political realities and have embraced "politics of the meek" and I have no idea what they hope to gain from this. Here we have one of the most criminal administrations in US history, by almost every standard and congress decides to give them a free pass. I honestly wonder why they are doing this. Is getting Hillary elected that friggin important? Couldn't we have just impeached and risked ending up with a different candidate?

[FreepFryer]

72. They're afraid that the current occupants of the White House will create another tragedy. (n/t)

[kenfrequed]

123. And so...

That is a reason to not impeach???

Because if we try to Impeach the administration will somehow cause another tragedy???? That doesn't make any sense.

[FreepFryer]

124. Yes it does. It's called 'extortion' (n/t)

[Sam Ervin jret]

103. Hope, you want to wait and hope? Now that's a campaign strategy only a democrat could love

Maybe the next Katrina will hit your neighbor hood, or the net bomb will be at your expense? Is that really a sign of HOPE?

Crossing your fingers and waiting for the madness to end is no strategy. It's a defensive mechanism, if you want to lead by DEFESIVE MOVES ONLY, I guess you idea is worth a thought. But....

I wouldn't wait for my Profile in Courage Award.

[FreepFryer]

106. "that's a campaign strategy only a democrat could love" is a phrase only a Freeper could love.

I'm not trying in any way to justify this inaction in the face of high crimes and misdemeanors, I only seek to explain it. Make your own mind up and vote accordingly.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

24. Thanks David

Nadler's been a windbag on this all along.

He probably forgot his sworn oath amidst all the fine dinig and gravy spills.

K&R

[Laelth]

29. Impeach NOW!

This needs to be read by many. The party that impeaches wins!

:dem:

-Laelth

[peacetalksforall]

31. Wexler said he had been against impeachment - wanted to get more

things done and then he went home to his district and the constituents told him what they wanted and he listened. So, it's up to you New Yorkers. Are we going to let Hillary Clinton dictate? Let the formal hearings begin. This is not the U.S. of Shirmer and Clinton, Pelosi and Reid. It is stil our nation unless Cheney is going to tell us something else or declare Cheney Law on us - his version of martial law. We need to impeach this person who is ruining our country and I believe they are afraid of his power. Plus, Former First Lady Clinton doesn't want to be bothered answering questions about the impeachment? Never, ever in the dozen and more years of defending her and Pres Clinton did I ever believe I would/could be as disappointed as I am in her and him. Nadler - who would have guessed - a former hero of mine.

Unbelievable.

Does this have anything to do with the makeup of the Supreme Court? If yes, can anyone explain? Would they run every hearing up to the court?

Are we under the ownership of Saudi Arabia and China and they don't want it because of Carlyle or something like that?

Has Cheney promised those countries something - free stuff paid for by us?

What is it?

Someone has to know what is going on.

[elleng]

49. Don't have answers, but

If impeachment proceedings are brought against the President, the Chief Justice presides, before the Senate.

[onenote]

59. yes the CJ "presides" but his role is essentially ministerial

He can make certain rulings on procedural matters, but anything he decides can be reversed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. He has no authohrity over the final decision.

[onenote]

32. Swanson really needs to get a fact-checker. Among his misstatements:

First, the claim that for 230 years the party seeking to impeach always benefits and the party declining to pursue impeachment suffers for it is demonstrably untrue. I'll give one example: in 1991 an impeachment resolution was introduced against Bush I. No effort was made to pursue it. And in 1992....Bill Clinton was elected president. As for some of his other examples, despite Nixon actually having been driven from office and despite Ford's blunder in pardoning Nixon, Ford came damn close to winning election. He actually won more states that Carter and the electoral vote differential was the smallest in 60 years. His defeat had more to do with his missteps in the debates (and missteps by running mate Dole) than Nixon's impeachment.

And Swanson is flat out wrong when he says "When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure." In fact, the repubs loss of five seats in the HOuse and their failure to win any Senate seats in 1998 represented the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election and the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term. David should actually read up before he writes.

With respect to the 2000 elections, maybe Swanson believes that Bush won that election at the polls, but I believe most people here would agree that the Supreme Court decided that election, not the voters.

And finally,as for Truman, he had already announced that he would not seek re-election by the time that the repubs suggested, briefly, impeaching him over the Steel Seizure. That effort quickly went by the by after the SCOTUS held that Truman had indeed violated the constitution -- a rather odd precedent for Swanson to cite -- highest court in the land finds that president exceeded his powers and repubs decide not to pursue impeachment and somehow that proves Swanson's point? He must have slept through logic class.

[davidswanson]

34. sadly

there was no major effort to impeach Bush the First.

My original post was as much about congressional races as presidential. Not only did Ford lose. So did Republicans in Congress.

Your claim that the Republicans failure to gain seats in 1998 (and presumably in 2000 too) was unusual depends on what angle you look at it from, but fals far short of the accepted "wisdom" on capitol hill that impeaching Clinton decimated the Republican Party.

Yes, of course, Gore won the election, as did Kerry. But Gore made it close enough to steal by making impeachment leader Lieberman his running mate and pretending he'd never met Clinton. That was the impact of impeachment on the race. It didn't hurt Bush or the Republicans.

The Supreme Court does not exist in a vacuum. It stepped in, in response to Congress. The Republicans in Congress then won.

[onenote]

35. I don't believe i've ever heard anyone claim that the impechment effort decimated the repubs

I certainly have never claimed that. All I've done is rebut the incorrect statement that they did better than would have been expected based on historical precedent. In fact, they did worse..considerably so.

And I'm confused as to why the absence of a serious effort against Bush I somehow negates that example, but the absence of a serious effort against Truman doesn't negate that example. Again, if anything, it would seem like the fact that you had a SCOTUS ruling against Truman would have emboldened the repubs. instead, they decided, apparently correctly, that not pushing forward with impeachment, but instead focusing on defeating the Democratic nominee was more important.

[davidswanson]

44. you must

not spend much time in congress

there WAS a serious effort re Truman and it worked

impeachment even now might work without getting all the way to impeachment, but someone has to find the decency to start the process

[onenote]

56. I spend a great deal of time in COngress and there was no serious impeachment effort v truman

Sorry, but you're 0 for 2 on your post.

And tell me more about this "serious" effort to impeach Truman and how it "worked"?

Because the history books suggest otherwise. Here are some historical facts:

Truman (and by extension the Democrats) were in deep trouble before the steel seizure events that led to the introduction of an impeachment resolution against Truman. Largely because of the public's dissatisfaction with the firing of MacArthur, by 1951, Truman's popularity was below 25%. There were threats to bring an impeachment resolution against Truman after he fired MacArthur, but no such resolution was actually ever filed. A couple of wees after Truman ordered the steel mill seizurein April 1952, Rep. Bender introduced an impeachment resolution. That resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. A few days later, another resolution was introduced by Rep. Schafer and that resolution also was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

In June, Shafer filed a discharge petition to force his resolution to be reported out of the Judiciary Committee and the petition failed to gather the necessary signatures. There is no other record of any action relating to these resolutions and presumably they died in committee.

If that is considered a "serious effort" to impeach, then by golly we're damn close to having accomplished that now. DK introduced his resolution, used the privileged procedure to try to get it heard, failed, but got a majority vote to refer it back to committee. Sounds about as "serious" an effort as the one against Truman.

The fact that impeachment resolutions were filed against Truman had zip to do with the repubs victory over Stevenson in 1952. Truman and the Democrats popularity was in the toilet already over the Korean War, the firing of MacArthur, corruption issues, and, particularly in the South, Truman's pro-civil rights effort (which had resulted in a Civil Rights plank being added to the Democratic Party platform.

[davidswanson]

90. bender's impeachment resolution

got national press
The Chicago Tribune endorsed it
Like the previous proposal to impeach Truman, it was all over TV and Radio in a serious way
Dirksen went on primetime radio and said he was getting flooded with mail supporting impeachment and Congress shouldn't shirk its duty, no matter how soon the next election was
Republicans were in the minority but strategizing how to pull it off until the Supreme Court stepped in
The Republicans came out looking like THEY gave a damn about the Constitution

[onenote]

110. I don't believe the Chicago Tribune endorsed bender's resolution and here are Dirksen's comments

Maybe there is such an editorial, and if you could provide a link, I'd be interested. The only editorial comment by the Tribune endorsing Truman's impeachment of which I'm aware was not related to the steel seizure or bender's resolution, but rather came earlier, after TRuman fired MacArthur. And despite some noise from a few repubs, no one actually introduced an impeachment resolution based on that action.

And here is a link to Dirksen's primetime radio interview where he talks at length about impeachment. He stays firmly planted on the fence about it imo. Interestingly, he seems to think that if the SCOTUS ruled that Truman's effort was legal, it should impact the impeachment effort. Under the cirucmstances, I'm still at a loss to figure out why you think the SCOTUS stepping stoppped the impeachmnent momentum. My guess is that it provided them with a good excuse not to do something that they decided they wouldn't benefit from doing. That decision, by the way, came two weeks before the discharge petition was filed. http://www.dirksencenter.org/emd_interviews/5.2.52%20Capitol%20Cloak%20Room.pdf

As for the repubs coming out looking like they cared about the constitution, the fact is that the two members of Congress who played the biggest role in blocking any serious impeachment effort against Truman were Speaker Sam Rayburn and Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler. The public didn't punish them at all. And while Ike's landslide victory over Stevenson swept in 22 new repub members of COngress and gave them the majority in 1952, two years later, the Democrats recovered almost all of those seats, ending up with a larger majority over the repubs in 1954 than the repubs had over the Democrats in 1952.

The point is that there is no general rule that pursuing impeachment helps or hurts a party. Each instance is different. Despite claims to the contrary, the repubs did not benefit from their effort to impeach Clinton -- and I can't think of a leading Democrat that suffered at the polls in 1998 or 2000 for having argued against Clinton's impeachment.

Finally, the simple fact is that the proposal to have "non-impeachment" hearings is the only step that is remotely achievable. If there is precedent in the last 125 years of an impeachment inquiry being conducted without the House, as a body, first voting to authorize and mandate those hearings, I can't think of it. As someone with your own experience on the Hill, you know as well as I do that such precedent is going to be ignored. And you know, as well as I do, that a vote by the full House to authorize an impeachment inquiry at this point will fail.

[bbgrunt]

33. k and r.

[Justice Is Comin]

37. "Non impeachment hearings?"

Jesus Christ.

If Rocky Marciano fought like you wimps, he would be a sous chef.

You clowns are a joke. Oh, by the way issue more subpoenas too. The republics need more side splitting laughs.

[defendandprotect]

43. "Non-impeachment hearings" sounds like it came out of a word factory ---

propaganda for "let's ignore what's been going on since election 2000 ---

Ignore it and it will go away --- ?

[Voltaire99]

45. Democoward.

Put Nadler with Pelosi and Reid: useless, cowardly slugs who'd sooner hold office than serve the Republic-that-was.

They've let Bushism run roughshod over the country (and the world) as a campaign tactic, knowing the pain would boost their own political fortunes.

Pathetic.

[hfojvt]

47. anybody else read this headline as "Nader" instead of Nadler?

Nader? Again??!!

[radfringe]

50. confused

he's blocking impeachment - yet this article -http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2750919

says he hopes the bushies are prosecuted AFTER they leave office

why wait? do it now.

if we can't put impeachment on the table - then put it on the FLOOR of the house

[Disturbed]

51. The majority of Dems are afraid of something.

I cannot figure out what that is.

[tanyev]

58. I don't know either, but I bet it's locked up in Cheney's man-sized safe.

[bdamomma]

68. maybe their phones are being tapped too.

there is so much BS going on, and of course the American people are on the back burner and the burner is on. These guys in Congress are just letting these thugs commit crimes and letting them run out the clock till Nov. 2008 while in the meantime our Constitution has been shredded and people like Cheney says he wants no expiration date for terrorist suveillance?? What kind of BS is this??? I guess we must be a threat to these thugs if they want to wiretap and spy on us. Sickening how there is such a disconnect between us and our Congress. We need to get on the phone everyday and push for these hearings for impeachment.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

69. They started turning weird right around the time of anthrax -nt

[jaybeat]

98. They are afraid, I fear, of we the people

The whole Democratic anti-impeachment argument seems to boil down to this:

We would rather allow the Constitution to be trampled on than risk not having HRC (the presumptive nominee, or at least the one favored by the anti-impeachment wing) be elected President.

We would rather use Bush/Cheney crimes as political fodder, than actually get rid of them.

We are more concerned about our personal acquisition of power than we are about crimes against the American people or the Constitution.

If, someday, WE do what THEY did, WE don't want to suffer the consequences. We don't want to open the door of holding ANY of us (politicians of any party) accountable for our crimes. WE don't want the agenda dictated to us by activist rabble; WE want to DICTATE the agenda so that it serves our political interests.

Same reason they don't want to look into Sibel Edmonds' allegations: some Democrats might get swept up, and THEY'D RATHER LET A BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN CRIMES GO UNPUNISHED than have a few Democratic crimes exposed.

Same reason they don't want to look into election theft/fraud/etc. Because they're thinking that, someday, Diebold, et. al., might switch sides.

I'm really starting to feel that very few of them give a RAT'S ASS about anything but themselves, their wallets, their buddies and their power. They don't really care if America is becoming a fascist state, as long as they either the ones in charge, or can show that they've "played nice" with the ones in charge.

They may also in fact be afraid that, if removal from power were a serious threat, that BushCo could engineer another 9/11 (or much worse), suspend elections, declare martial law, and put them all in camps. (Not that they aren't seriously considering it, anyway. The Dems just may not want to push them in that direction.)

Decisions, decisions...

:puke: or :nuke: = :shrug: + :scared:

[LeftCoast]

52. David, you've offered a very detailed argument but left out one glaring detail

You don't even quote why these folks oppose impeachment. I'm not asking you to speculate, just quote them.

[davidswanson]

91. can you?

for many months i've listed and replied to all their excuses at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/impeachfaq

[DeeDeeNY]

53. Nadler is Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution?

I wonder when was the last time he read it. Sad and disgusting!

[jonnyra]

55. Doesnt matter what the reason is

The bottom line is Pelosi is running cover for the war crimes of an administration run amok. We all know the pathetic "it would be divisive" line is total bullshit. There is something she is hiding...something she is determined to keep from coming out. The truth will eventually come out. It might be years from now but the truth will come out. And when it does hers and many other prominent democrats names will be linked to many of the crimes we have seen committed by this government against the citizens of this nation and the world.

[patrioticintellect]

57. To the man introducing impeachment articles

Goes my vote for the presidency!

[flasoapbox]

60. When I first read the headline, I thought it said "Nader"

lol, I got all worked up over nothing. Well, not nothing, since Nadler's
still an asshole, but you know...

[N4457S]

113. Speaking of...

...they say Nader is once again giving serious consideration to jumping in, says he'll know by next month.

He screwed Gore in Florida. Everyone knows that.

[cartach]

62. Just another reminder

of what spineless losers the American electorate has become. I wholeheartedly agree with the ranting and raving in the article about the wrongs being done and the associated comments but,as when I've finished reading similar articles and comments,I'm left with a sickening feeling that nothing,absolutely nothing, will be done to change things, and the next elections will not bring about meaningful change no matter which party wins. Anybody who seriously wants positive change has to do more than vent on a website discussion forum and should know by now that sitting on their ass at a keyboard in the comfort of their home is a waste of time. People seem to think that the internet has become the panacea but it really just allows some frustration to be vented. Maybe they have to take it to the streets like they've done at times in the past and as they still do in some "less civilized" countries. Sitting around waiting for an elected politician to do something will not accomplish anything. There, now you've heard my rant for the day.

[Sam Ervin jret]

105. Some of us can post and produce at the same time.

but if you conscience is bothering get out and volunteer.

Every one you help, helps all.

[BlueJac]

65. Big money wins again!

This country is going, going, gone. We need to vote quite a few incumbents out this year.

[bdamomma]

67. signed.

[davidwparker]

71. David, when I read your headline, I got a sense of the problem, IMHO. The

question to always ask is "who benefits." Nadler has always seemed to be a stand up guy on matters of this. So, I wanted to test my theory by googling Nadler to confirm something. Nadler is a Rep. in New York.

New York? Would the reason Nadler is being a sticking point have anything to do with the junior senator from New York -- Hillary -- running for the presidency? Could it be that his is standing down due to impeachment hearings might be messy and interfere with Hillary's changes? You know how cautious the Democratic leadership is.

On the long list of reasons that I don't want to see the Clintons back in the WH is that a lot of the Iran/Contra traitors got a get out jail free pass when Bill became president.

Is Rep Nader's (D., NY) motive to do his part for Hillary who is doing her part for the * Crime Family?

[davidswanson]

87. nadler backs hillary and speaks at rallies for her

that's not secret

he also may want conyers' chairmanship when conyers retires - that's speculation

he also may believe himself the nonsense pelosi and others spout about the electoral importance and advantage of not doing what people want in order to get them to vote for you

he also hears from too many respectable activist groups that do NOT back impeachment, and the main reason they don't is because pelosi doesn't

[leveymg]

118. David - IMHO, the main reason Pelosi is blocking Impeachment and investigations is because

Democrats are so split over the question of bringing those responsible for the Iraq WMD lies to justice.

Who has been acting as the wedge on this? AIPAC, for one. Conflict among progressives over impeachment reflects a growing schism within the Dem Party and among Jewish Congressmen over issues of accountability for a string of foreign policy disasters.

It's not really a Right-Left thing, as Nadler otherwise has a good progressive record. There are liberal Jewish Congressmen on both sides of this. Wexler, the chief proponent of Impeachment is Jewish, as are several supporters of his Bill.

However, AIPAC's leadership along with some in Israel have good reason to want to avoid high-profile hearings that would expose the American public to the role of prominent neoconservatives and the Sharon-Olmert governments in leading the Bush Administration down a hole into Iraq and in pushing a confrontation with Iran based on unfounded assumptions about Iranian capabilities and intentions.

The prospects of the Democratic Party, including prominent Jewish lawmakers, picking up the mantle of Impeachment and going after the authors of a manifestly failed Middle East policy has some Israelis so terrified that they appear to be taking names of Jewish Congreemen who support Wexler and Kucinich's Bills. This may be seen in the following Jewish Telegraph Agency article. See,

Wexler wants impeachment hearings

Published: 12/14/2007


A top Jewish congressman is urging Congress to consider impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), told a local Democratic Party meeting on Monday in Palm Beach County, Fla. that impeachment hearings would leverage Congress' bargaining power with the White House, which has repeatedly applied the veto pen to congressional initiatives.

"This administration has abused its power in office apparently in several ways and it is the obligation - not discretionary, but it is the obligation - of this Congress to investigate, and that is what I and some of my colleagues are beginning to call for," Wexler said, an apparent dig at the U.S. House of Representatives speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who has said that she will not consider impeachment hearings.

He said such hearings would also make the United States more popular overseas and facilitate alliances. "If we want to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power we need to become more popular," Wexler said in remarks first reported by the Palm Beach Post and picked up by Raw Story, an alternative news website. "Let me tell you one more things those impeachment hearings will do, they will make America more popular."

Wexler has not gone so far as to cosponsor a bill by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) , a longshot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for Cheney's impeachment. Still, in November Wexler joined a minority of Democrats who voted against a motion to suppress debate of Kucinich's measure.

Wexler said at the time that such a debate would help air alleged Bush administration abuses. "The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry," he said. Wexler's status as a senior Democrat on the Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Financial Service committees and his moderate views on foreign policy lend mainstream weight to the calls for impeachment hearings.

Of the 24 sponsors of Kucinich's impeachment bill, three are Jewish: Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

I believe that Wexler recognizes that those liberals who are blocking Impeachment aren't serving the interests of either the Democratic Party or Israel. This represents a split in philosophy and in tactics between the unilateralists, led by the neocons, who advocate the failed policy of “regime change” across the Middle East, and Wexler, who seems to recognize that neither the U.S. nor Israel will be able to contain Iranian ambitions without a more realistic, limited set of objectives that can be embraced by other states in the region, as well as by the Europeans, and other traditional U.S. allies.

The time has come to expose those who falsified intelligence and lied about Iraq and Iran, and to begin putting together a more rational policy. But, first, Americans and Israelis must show that they are serious about rejecting the failed policies of unilateral aggression and preemptive war. Impeaching and prosecuting those who broke the law is a necessary step toward reconstructing a successful foreign policy.

[donkeyotay]

128. Well said. That's the elephant that everyone is tippy toeing around. nt

[L. Coyote]

74. K & R & Impeach two too

[Sadie5]

76. david parker

Don't know if I'm right about the Iran/Contra, but I thought poppy pardoned those crooks before Clinton took office. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[kelligesq]

78. Free phone numbers to DC

unbelievable. Our own dems are against enforcing the law and the Constitution
because they know they are in safe districts for re-election.

When they do not do what is right for America and American citizens, when they do not follow the law and the constitution, Dems should let them knkow we will not support them for re-election or vote for them. As a matter of fact we will
look for another dem in their district to run and replace them. That should get their attention.

I think these are the toll free numbers to Congress -

1 800 862 5530
828-0498
614-2803
340-9281
338-1015
220-0044

ask for the Senator Congressman you want to speak to


1) demanding impeachment,especially Jerry Nadler, Pelosi, Conyers, anyone on
Judiciary Committee.

2) demanding no immunity for telcoms that violated the law which protects
Americans right to privacy . we demand ceasing of illegal wiretapping of
AMericans


Nelson Florida going to vote for immunity, he's with Feinstein (puke)

Feingold against immunity

[kelligesq]

97. NEW TOLL FREE THAT WORKS

Toll Free Number


[phone]

we pay for that number and now they want us to pay legal fees and awards for
ATT wrong doing.

Sorry about the first number, guess they shut it off but I just checked this number and it works.

[Andrea]

79. K & R

This NEEDS to be done.

[rateyes]

82. OK, Nadler constituents...

unless he changes his mind SOON, it's time to run another Democrat against him and vote his ass out of office.

[FreepFryer]

96. He's my Congressman and I still back him. He knows damn well what evil he's up against. (nt)

[davidswanson]

99. is he up against it

in opposition or in a warm servile embrace?

[davidswanson]

84. Why Toothless Imperial Presidency Hearings Are Not a New Idea:

Why Toothless Imperial Presidency Hearings Are Not a New Idea:

From http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=442

Hearings Announced: “The Constitution in Crisis”

May 31st, 2007 by Jesse Lee

From Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler:

Chairman Nadler Announces Hearings Series: “The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America”

Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee to Explore Administration Programs Threatening Americans’ Liberties;

Kicks Off with June 7 Hearing on NSA Wiretapping Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, announced a series of hearings titled “The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America.” In these hearings, the Subcommittee will examine the Bush Administration’s policies, actions and programs that threaten Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights and civil liberties and also hear proposals for potential legislative fixes.

The series will begin with a hearing on June 7, 2007, which will examine the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and the Administration’s proposals for expanding it.

“This Congress must void the blank check the White House has enjoyed for the last six years,” said Rep. Nadler. “The time for real accountability and meaningful oversight is now, and this Subcommittee will fulfill its constitutional duty to protect the fundamental freedoms of all Americans.”

Topics to be covered by the hearings include:

· The National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and proposed expansions;
· The erosion of Habeas Corpus through the Military Commissions Act;
· The sanctioning of torture through the Military Commissions Act and other government policies;
· The practice of “extraordinary rendition,” or government sponsored kidnapping;
· PATRIOT Act threats to privacy rights, including the FBI’s abuses of the National Security Letter authority and intrusions into Americans’ “Freedom to Read”;
· Government surveillance of First Amendment-protected activities; and
· The gutting of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights and Voting Rights Divisions.

“Most importantly, we will carefully examine this White House’s seeming disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law,” added Rep. Nadler. “Secret, warrantless spying, the erosion of habeas corpus, the sanction of torture, and this Administration’s contempt for the other two branches of government - these issues demand close scrutiny and congressional action.”

Rep. Nadler has already introduced a number of important pieces of legislation in the 110th Congress to restore some of the basic civil liberties that the Bush Administration has stripped from the Constitution. Along with Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA-36), Rep. Nadler introduced H.R.1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 along with H. R. 1416, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Both bills would fix many of the problems contained in the Military Commissions Act.

What: House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Oversight Hearing on the Constitutional Limitations on Domestic Surveillance

Who: Steven G. Bradbury, Assistant Attorney General, Office of General Counsel

Bruce Fein, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Jameel Jaffer, Director, National Security Project, American Civil Liberties Union

Lou Fisher, American Law Division, Library of Congress

When: Thursday, June 7, 2007 — 2:00 p.m.

Where: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm by Jesse Lee and is filed under Civil Rights, Real Security, Oversight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

[femrap]

85. Big time K AND R

Let's bug Nadler till he screams 'Aunt and Uncle! OK, IMPEACHMENT IS ON THE TABLE!'

[lala_rawraw]

88. well, i have to say

i am confused... Nadler seems to be one of the most level-headed and decent politicians i have yet met. i am really shocked by this.

[undeterred]

93. Nadler shall heretofore be known as NADLESS.

[november3rd]

104. It ain't about elections

BushCo has dirt on everybody. That's what they're afraid of.

[Sam Ervin jret]

107. Like I posted on another thread. DON'T LET YOUR CONGRESS PERSON GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO VIEW THE ....

FISA TAPES they just opened up today. every one who "sees" them becomes "convinced" it's important to protect the communications companies. ??? It's like watching Invasion of the BODY SNATCHERS! They go in one ideology and come out J.EDGAR HOOVER. I don't care what secrets they have. What they have on any ONE cannot matter more than the whole. NO FISA immunity. It's freaking me out.

I don't care if they stopped a damned invasion from PLUTO. NO FISA IMMNUITY

[Usrename]

119. Jerrold 'Quisling' Nadler

Who would have thunk it?

[donkeyotay]

129. K&R. Post election everyone will just want to move forward.

But as the Iran-contra and the S&L scandals demonstrate, when corruption isn't prosecuted, it comes back.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

131. When the Repukes impeached President Clinton for having sex.....

..... the Repukes didn't try to "make nice" with the Democrats first. They actually impeached and humiliated our President before the entire planet. At the end of the day they didn't vote to oust him but they humiliated the man for months, made him fight for the presidency, nearly cost him the presidency, and it will be forever remembered in history books. And yet President Clinton had not committed treason like this administration has, nor committed any of the crimes this administration has. What he did was the same thing any Repuke was later found out of doing: committing adultery.

For this reason, it shocked the hell out of me when I first saw President Clinton with Bush's father. I just couldn't believe my eyes that this man was being pals with individuals crucial in the political party that humiliated him and dragged him, and his wife through the mud. Has he no self-respect?

Then, when our party finally controlled the Congress, I was convinced these criminals in the White House would be impeached and forced to respond for their crimes. But instead, our reps and senators are holding hearings about baseball instead of interrogating these treasonous bastards. They also have no self-respect.

If they don't have self-respect, how could they, why would they, give a damn about my well being?

[nancyharris]

132. I see your point , Sarah

but just for the record, President Clinton was not impeached for having sex or committing adultery.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

133. Sure he was. He was impeached for lying about having had sex

But our Democrats, are STILL refusing to impeach for even 1 of the major crimes committed by these criminals in the White House.

[nancyharris]

135. He was impeached

on 2 counts. 1.)lying under oath (perjury) to a grand jury and 2.)obstruction of justice
Unfortunately, it is not a crime for a politician to lie to the public; but it is, if the person lies under oath testifying to a grand jury.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

136. He was impeached. These criminals in the White House need to be impeached.

They are not being impeached, there is no plan to impeach them, and the Democratic Party (I'm sure the right wing side of it) is the reason why this isn't being done.

[nancyharris]

137. I know it is hard to fathom

over the din of noise on this site to put Cheney and Bush "behind bars" but the FACT is that the Democrats will not allow impeachment proceeding because: 1- There is no crime (breach of law) to impeach them on, 2- They would loose an impeachment vote in the House (even the majority of Democrats would not vote for impeachment without a crime (breach of law) and 3- Nothing - Nothing - Nothing would galvanize the Republican Party like impeachment hearings in the House. Democrats are not going to jeopardize a loss in the general election for impeachment proceedings that will never result in an impeachment anyway and will afford the Republicans months of free air time to paint the Democrats as more interested in revenging Bill Clinton than electing Hillary Clinton.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

141. I know it's hard for you to fathom that baseball isn't as important as impeaching these criminals...

but please try to think about it.

There has been plenty to impeach them on. It is a questioning forum, and I want their asses there, nice and humiliated, having to answer questions in front of the entire nation, so everyone can hear the crimes they've committed.

Second, it matters very little to me and to most true Democrats (the lefties, not the fake Democrats) whether the impeachment vote would be lost, won or neither. The issue is that these criminals have to be impeached. If mass resources and time were used impeaching Clinton for something as trivial as lying about having put his penis inside a woman not his wife, certainly we can spare a bit of resources and some time to throw these two evil freaks on the stand and humiliate their asses before the nation so everyone gets a chance to see what Repukes are all about.

Third, the Repuke party galvanizes over our immobilization, our paralysis and our fear. I'm none of the three, but it embarrasses the hell out of me to watch these right wing Democrats in Congress shiver and shake at the idea that they might actually be forced to throw these sh*theads in front of the cameras to answer for the crimes they committed.

If these right wing Democrats in the Congress do not have the balls to do that, they need to be voted out, and real Democrats with balls voted in.

[nancyharris]

142. Amazingly, you couldn't be more wrong

in your assessment of the Democratic Party. It isn't the "right wing of the Democratic Party" that is against impeachment proceedings. It is the overwhelming mainstream of the Democratic Party that opposes impeachment. There is a reason Kucinich could not muster more than a few percentage of the Democratic Party (and may even loose his Congressional seat to another Democrat). There is a reason that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson are not calling for impeachment. There is a reason that Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, Dean, Biden, Dodd, Clark, Gore and Bill Clinton are not calling for impeachment.

These are not the "right-wing". They are solid Democrats who have worked tirelessly for many years building a National Party that has a better than even chance of winning the Whitehouse and solid majorities in both Congressional bodies. They are not going to jeopardize that for the sake of a small minority within the party lusting for revenge (at the sake of the majority).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

147. Actually, since the Democratic Party began to lean right, it's become ineffectual. nt