The Nation: Impeachment Fever Rises

[Hissyspit]

http://www.thenation.com:80/doc/20070507/nichols

Impeachment Fever Rises
John Nichols

When Nancy Pelosi announced last fall that impeachment was "off the table," official Washington accepted that the primary avenue for holding lawless Presidents to account had been closed off by the new Speaker of the House. But the Republic's citizenry has not been so inclined. And now, with the Administration's troubles mounting, they're preparing to tell Pelosi that America and the world cannot wait until January 20, 2009, to put an end to Bush's reign of error. When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Delegates are expected to endorse the measure.

Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. The President's troop surge into Iraq and his refusal to consider exit strategies has caused many to react like GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, who has observed, "The President says...he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him." Hagel's remarks go to the heart of the surge in interest in impeachment: It stems from Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution. Legitimate impeachment initiatives are organic responses to the realities of a moment rather than purely legal procedures. Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law. This explains why the allegation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, apparently with White House approval, pressured US Attorneys to politicize prosecutions has added so much fuel to the fire, with activists like Vermont's Dan DeWalt now saying, "I don't have any trouble getting people to agree that impeachment is necessary."

DeWalt engineered a campaign in March to get town meetings in his state to pass resolutions calling on Congress to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Three dozen towns did so, including Middlebury, where GOP Governor Jim Douglas found himself presiding over a meeting that voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after the two for misleading the nation about the threat posed by Iraq, condoning torture and approving illegal electronic surveillance. The goal of the town meeting movement was to get the state legislature to forward articles of impeachment to the US House. Citing Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which makes reference to the authority of state legislatures to propose impeachment, legislators in at least ten states, including Vermont, have now done so. But the real success of the initiative was to illustrate the popular appeal of impeachment--an effort helped along by Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who devoted a week of strips to the town meeting votes--and to tell members of Congress like Vermont's Peter Welch that they might want to take their cues from constituents rather than Pelosi. Welch has responded by meeting with activists and asking them for more details of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors.

MORE

[snappyturtle]

1. WE THE PEOPLE! Yes, yes, yes! n/t

[Mme. Defarge]

2. My Pelosi 07 bumper stickers

came yesterday, and I slapped one this morning. Ready to hand out the others.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I'll bet Hagel wishes he could swallow those words. But I'm still proud

of him for saying it. Wish Nancy would, too.

[Divine Discontent]

59. I agree

wish she'd say something too...

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[Atman]

4. Only ONE STATE has to call for impeachment, and Pelosi is duty-bound

to take it up. It's in the constitution, I believe. If ONE STATE musters the votes to call for impeachment, BY LAW the issue must be put on the agenda.

Correct me if I'm wrong, resident Constitutional Scholars.

.

[Recursion]

35. Quite the opposite

Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

The House, and only the House, can impeach. The Senate, and only the Senate, can try an impeached Federal official.

[Atman]

38. You answered a different question, but thank you.

I'm talking about the requirements of the House and/or Senate once a state sends up an impeachment resolution. I believe by law they are required to bring it up for discussion, they cannot simply say "No, we don't want to do that." That doesn't mean they are required to actually begin impeachment proceedings, only that the issue must be presented to the full body for deliberation.

.

[WhiteTara]

46. but what of the Jefferson Rules

that are being touted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson's_Manual

The House of Representatives formally incorporated Jefferson's Manual into its rules in 1837, stipulating that the manual "should govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and order of the House and the joint rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives." Since then, the House has regularly printed an abridged version of the Manual in their publication entitled Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives. <1>

Jefferson's Manual was based on notes Jefferson took while learning parliamentary procedure at the College of William and Mary.<2> A second edition with added material by Jefferson was printed in 1812.

Impeachment

Jefferson's Manual is currently being used in the movement to impeach George W. Bush. Although the impeachment process is usually thought of as a bill introduced by a representative, the Manual actually outlines several different methods:
"In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House."<3>

Several states have therefore introduced bills which, if passed, could begin the impeachment process.

[Lord Balto]

51. Does this mean we can't

guillotine the murdering bastards?

[WhiteTara]

58. well, if found guilty of treason

the punishment is death. I say firing squad, any day, high noon on the White House lawn.

[robinlynne]

60. the chief justice? Roberts? bush boy?

[Phredicles]

5. Wish I could super-ultra-mega recommend this,

but regular recommending will have to do.

[WritersBlock]

6. I'll lend you one of my recommendations, then....

Happy to K&R, too!!



I get so damn tired of this "it'll distract us from more important business" crap.

There is nothing that we, the citizens of this country, can do that is more important than removing these criminals from power.

In fact, there is nothing that we, the citizens of this country, can do that is anywhere near as important as removing these criminals from power.

IMPEACH NOW.

[chknltl]

8. Eloquently stated...

AND STRONGLY AGREED WITH!

[calimary]

36. Hear, hear!

Hey, WE here have been talking about this for ages. DU once again - ahead of the curve.

Hey, kkkarl! WE are an empire now (NOT YOU!!!). When WE act, YOU will study US, judiciously, as you will. Then WE WILL ACT AGAIN, and it's YOU and YOUR pals who'll be left to study what WE do. And enjoy your nice lounge chair on the Titanic. Hope you've got yourself a lovely view there!

:toast:

[Hissyspit]

9. Here is the secret code to put in for the super-ultra-mega recommend:

When you click on s'

sssssssssss m.

Drat, som eethinggwrong with my KEEEBooooooard./jjjj and DU is messing upsssssll

I'll have 88to let you no LAter.


:P

[ninkasi]

7. One of the most intelligent, most ethical people I know

is my cousin. He recently retired as Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Sociology, at the university where he taught. If I put his name in Google, it brings up over 275, 000 hits. He regularly sends me articles of common interest, all having to do with the incompetence, and corruption, of the Bush administration.

He is widely published in academic circles, and highly respected. He and I are in complete agreement on the disaster that has been the Bush administration. As far as I'm concerned, the opinion of someone so highly educated, and well regarded, only validates my own opinion regarding the criminal Bush cabal. Bush needs to be impeached, the sooner, the better. Cheney, and several others need to go, as well.

[Norrin Radd]

10. But...but...but...we don't have the votes!

:sarcasm: ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. We don't RIGHT NOW

this is following the script of Watergate almost to the letter. that alone is creepy

All the investigations are a prelim for the articles

And as the elections get closer many GOP SENATORS (we have the votes in the house to impeach, but we lack the ones in the Senate to convict) wil have to make the same faustian choice they made in '73

Stand with Nixon... or keep their jobs

Stand with Bush... or keeptheir jobs

by the way, have you written your Senators about this? IF they are pubbies they need to hear from you... and your neighbors and your freinds... the more the merrer

[Hekate]

12. Hear, hear. I think the hearings are building blocks. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I'm just amazed that folks just expect things to happen

without putting any ink, emails, calls of their own

[TwilightGardener]

28. Don't have to write mine--he's the only one who brought up the subject--LOL!

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Actually YOU DO

[Norrin Radd]

55. Yes, I have. First, long ago, and subsequently, repeatedly.

Cantwell ignores us, though.

My sarcasm was directed toward those who believe it is hopeless because they claim there are no votes, and never will be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Oh it is not hopeless, just wonder if we will not run

out of time

Olympia snowe is starting to teeter and we have how many of these guys up for election?

;-)

[thinkbridge]

14. The Impeachment Imperative

It is our public DUTY to impeach George W. Bush. Not that Cheney should get off, either, but Bush is where the "buck" stops. If lying to the Congress and the American People in order to invade a foreign country without just cause and circumvent the checks and balances of our Constitution is not cause for impeachment, maybe his continuous efforts to expand the executive branch and subvert Constitutional checks and balances is. I think his crimes and misdemeanors are far worse than Nixon's, even though Nixon worked on outright burglary. But the callous, calculated lies that Bush uses to get policies he wants, policies that are aimed at building a war economy, and also the fraudulent election, make impeachment imperative

[Hissyspit]

15. Related Post: Washington State Lawmakers Debate Impeahcment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x711199

[live love laugh]

16. Count me in. nt

[mmonk]

17. My temperature is around 104.

K&R

[Skinner]

18. I can't believe that a politically aware person could write this paragraph...

...without giving some sort of token recognition to the glaring omission:

"Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban."

There has been a president impeached since Nixon. The party that impeached him did provoke an electoral backlash.

If you are going to make such a difinitive statement about what history suggests, you really need give some sort of explanation for the example that does not fit your view of history. In recent history there are only two examples of impeachment, and one of them (the more recent one, I might add) does not square with the author's view. That's 50-50. A coin toss. And the sample is awfully small to be making any sort of sweeping generalization.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Nixon and Bush at 30% favorability, Clinton at 55%.

I think we can reasonably assume the outcome of impeachment here. However, an incompetently managed prosecution would be disastrous.

[Senator]

21. Comparing with Clinton is Oxymoronic

(Note: And BTW, it's exactly what the Euphemedia is training people to think/fear. So it is not my intent to single out this poster. In fact, this next part is pasted from a previous post.)

It's not just apples and oranges, the circumstances are diametrically opposite.

Clinton was a popular, twice-elected president -- impeached for less-than-trivial reasons -- by a party in danger of being seen as extremists.

Bushcheney is an unpopular, never-elected, never-legitimate regime -- being impeached for torture/war crimes, spying on Americans, and terrorizing the nation into war -- by a party that might be in danger of being seen as conscious or vertebrate.

Realistically, we can expect "Reverse Clinton" results. Perhaps even on conviction/removal.

(Note: As to this current post)

Perhaps some "token recognition" is also due to the fact that 5 lost House seats in '98 (with a retained majority) and only 2 lost seats in 2000 (with a stolen WH) is not exactly an electoral backlash.

--

[Skinner]

23. 5 house seats does not seem like much. But look at it in historical context.

"It wasn't exactly a tsunami, but the Democrats did something that no party has done since 1934 -- win seats in a midterm while holding the White House." http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/house/roundup

That was the first time that happened in sixty years.

Nonetheless, my point is not that the author couldn't come up with some way to gloss over 1998. My point is that he didn't even bother to try. To me it is a glaring omission. If he wants to convince those of us who do not support impeachment, he can't simply ignore something like this. It smacks of cherry-picking.

[mmonk]

24. Cynicism will greatly increase if these crimes

aren't addressed and that threatens the democratic party alot more than it does the republican party. There already exists a third party that pulls votes away from the democratic party on the premise that there isn't enough difference between the two parties to matter who has power. And for those of us that always see a danger in crimes against the constitution and a danger in not defending the constitution, there are no good arguments for not upholding it.

[Skinner]

25. "Cynicism will greatly increase"?

And how do you know that cynicism will *not* greatly increase if we try to impeach him?

I tend to think that cynicism would increase in either circumstance. The difference is whose cynicism.

But again, I repeat: my point is not that the author couldn't come up with some way to gloss over 1998. My point is that he didn't even bother to try. To me it is a glaring omission. If he wants to convince those of us who do not support impeachment, he can't simply ignore something like this. It smacks of cherry-picking.

[mmonk]

26. That's fine. I don't expect an article like that to change minds anyway.

I expect public revelations that could be taken seriously once in the public domain to be the greatest mind changing force to the public. I still think democrats should heed the warning I mention.

[mmonk]

27. Also keep in mind

11 states have some sort of impeachment movement in their legislatures. No such movement existed over the Monica situation.

[acmavm]

52. Okay, now you have me confuses. So you are against impeachment?

Why?

And yes, Clinton's impeachment did have an impact. It lifted the republican party up out of the gutter and put them back into power. Gave them their 'putting honesty (or whatever it was) back into government' sound bite.

It could do the same for us. And it would because this administration is known to be jam packed with liars, imcompetents, traitors, thugs, thieves, you name the criminal acitvity, they've done it.

Impeaching those clowns is win/win.

[Morgana LaFey]

63. The Clinton impeachment was in a different class because

it did NOT result in Clinton's removal from office. That may be why the author doesn't even consider it in the same league as the Nixon impeachment.

Then too, the Clinton impeachment was trumped up shit, which most Americans understood perfectly well, which is precisely why the Republican-controlled Senate did not remove him from office and why the Republicans took such a beating for their overreaching on the subject.

The Bush administration offers us a completely different situation -- it's Nixon on steroids, cubed. He is destroying the nation -- raiding the Treasury, dismantling the Constituion, destroying the armed forces, raping the environment and as many natural resources as he and his greedy friends can get their hands on, etc. And on top of all that refusing to listen to the electorate about what THEY want done about Iraq. There are so many reasons to impeach this evil imbecile that it will be hard to come up with the "best" ones. And the same pretty much applies to Cheney.

The people are clamoring for impeachment, and have been for months. 52% of Americans were ready for impeachment proceedings when the first news of domestic spying surfaced. The incursions into our privacy have only worsened, who on earth would think Americans would be less inclined to see impeachment now?


1/31/2007 Newsweek poll: Impeachment supporters at 58% (up from 51%)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x82492
Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-27-2007/0004514285&EDATE=


PREVIOUSLY:
New Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x368423
Link: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

Zogby impeachment poll (if he lied re Iraq)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2985169
Link: http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12150


I don't know why anyone would be against impeachment (including Pelosi and Reid) -- it's the right thing to do, it's the right way to hold them accountable, it's the only way to stop him from more destruction of the nation and democracy itself, and it's something the people definitely are in favor of.

:shrug:

[loudsue]

66. Skinner, I've been alive for a lotta years, and I've NEVER seen so

many people clamoring for impeachment. I've never heard of States' legislatures even CONSIDERING passing resolutions favoring impeachment. NOT during Nixon, and not during Clinton. I've never seen town hall meetings set up to discuss passing resolutions favoring impeachment.

The people and their lower governments (cities, counties, and now states) see clearly how our country has been eroded by the criminality of this administration. And the fact that so many know that Gore actually WON in 2000, and the fact that a great many suspected that Kerry really won in 2004 (due to very questionable elections in Florida and Ohio), has left the legitimacy of the bush admin. in question from the start. For the first time in over 100 years, the vote (specifically in Ohio) was formally challenged in congress by a rep. & a senator in 2004.

The media and the extreme right wing (bush's base = roughly 29%) still did not convince the masses of non-extreme republican voters, independent voters, and the vast majority of Democratic voters that bush had his "mandate" in 2004. The news showed Ohio voters standing in line, many in the rain, in 2004, but more importantly, the people knew how many of their neighbors and family members voted for Kerry.

Those of us who have followed the science on the 2004 election KNOW that bush, AND the republican congresscritters, did not actually "win" the seats they obtained.

These are really different circumstances than ANYTHING I've seen in my almost 60 years. Impeachment is not only a good idea, it is absolutely critical if this country is ever going to respect the rule of law ever again. And if the rule of law is NOT shown the respect it deserves by this congress, in the form of impeachment, then more and more lawlessness will prevail as time goes on, and lawlessness (disrespect for the law and equal protection) will become even more systemic than it has already become under this administration. It's going to flat RUIN our nation.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Senator]

33. The real historical context...

...includes the diametrically opposing circumstances I described.

And I'll even suggest (admit) that the "merely 5" lost seats may well have been higher without the excessive gerrymandering that didn't exist historically (more context to keep in mind). But that's an arguable backlash for partisanship when they timed the impeachment vote specifically to effect the election (all the while parrotting that there "would be no partisan impeachment").

But again, the "Reverse Clinton" results that are more reasonably to be expected would dictate that the Dems should have campaigned on impeachment (the tsunami may well have been larger in November). But having failed to do that they should now impeach soonest to accentuate the "doing the right thing" effect and attenuate any "partisanship" effect. Not that either of these effects would hold a candle to the "finally standing up to them" effect that would reverse the (largely correct) perception of weakness that has plaqued the party for decades.

And if you'll forgive a momentary lapse of strategery, none of these "effects" outweighs the moral imperative of not remaining silently complicit with war crimes (arguably a war crime in itself). The damage that does to our nation -- both to our prestige in the world and to our domestic political environment (what better engine for hopelessness and apathy in the electorate?) -- is immeasurable.

As for your point about the author, it might help to know his historical context and recognize that the purpose of this piece was to briefly report on the actions/assertions of others -- to readers of The Nation, who could be expected to be aware of the greater body of his work -- and not to provide detailed support of his own well-founded assertions.


---

[mmonk]

22. A universe between the impeachment of Clinton

for a non constitutional crime and the impeachment threat of Richard Milhouse Nixon. And there is nothing in the constitution that impeachment for crimes against the constitution should be dependent upon popular opinion of an uninformed public (though polls show a majority currently for doing so).

[frogcycle]

29. Good point, and furthermore...

the spurious non-grounds for impeachment against Clinton and obvious political agenda did two things - one, made those who brought it forward look like the hacks they are to a large number of people, but two, made impeachment seem like a dirty political maneuver to those who slept through civics class.

Top that off with the obvious fact that if one considers impeachment of either bush or cheney, then logic says the other is an equally viable candidate; with the Speaker in the #3 spot, that casts an additional political pall over the process in the eyes of those same poor students.

Recall that Pelosi made that statement BEFORE the election; she was NOT Speaker at the time, but was working hard to get Dems elected and expected to become Speaker. One of the RW "talking points" was "if you elect dems they'll just rush in to impeach as 'payback' for the Clinton thing." Pure BS scare tactics, but we were, after all, in a pretty critical campaign and while many had high hopes, I don't think anyone thought we had a lock on both houses. So Pelosi's statement was what it was, and it could be that we benefited from it. It could be that without it we would not be in a position of even thinking about how to reverse it (I know, a nonsense statement, but you get the idea).

Impeachment of one person for malfeasance is what the framers of the Constitution provided for. In this Government of the People, they set up "checks and balances" and "oversight," originally put the power in the legislative branch, with the executive branch being just what the name implies - those who execute the laws enacted by the People, presumably following policy leads from the People. Removal of the Executive was envisioned as something akin to a corporate board of directors canning the CEO, but they said it has to be for cause, not just whimsy.

They did NOT envision a situation with an executive branch run amok, operating on "signing statements," using "litmus tests" for appointments to all positions in all branches, putting unqualified cronies in charge of everything from FEMA to FDA to DOJ to...(etc)

So impeachment talk now has an entirely different meaning both from that envisioned by the framers, and from that tried against Clinton.

As much as I find the concept of bush and cheney being frog-marched to Gitmo and Nancy moving in to the White House delicious, I know that it is not going to happen, and that an attempt so to do would be so painted as a coup attempt that the backlash could indeed be horrendous. The "swift-boating" campaign to paint all dems as Che Guevara would be overwhelming. The populace might not fall for it, but the risk is there.

Pelosi is rightfully staying far away from any suggestion that she has personal aspirations on "stealing" the White House back from these bastards. While in general I hate it when politicians make their supposed "policy" decisions only after carefully studying the polls, this is one case where I think any overt moves must come from "We the People" and the dems in congress have to be dragging grudgingly into it, if it is to happen. That is going to take more time than is available, so realistically, pragmatically, it makes more sense to focus on hogtieing the bastards and leaving them in place. Politically, having that pair sitting in the tops spots works much more to the advantage of winning overwhelmingly in 2008 and crushing the PNAC than any short-term success that could backfire in less than 18 months, pushing progressives back and emboldening the PNAC terrorists.

Can anyone thing of just one republican who, if moved into the presidency via a two-step process like with Ford, would actually be an improvement? Who could be expected to clean house, send rove packing, scrap the Regents University takeover, pull the troops out, etc? Who could be expected to stand up to the powers behind the scenes calling the shots? Removal of the entire administration is the ONLY solution; impeachment is an inadequate and potentially disastrous remedy.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Huh?

What electoral backlash? The party that impeached him ended up in the White House! What kind of backlash is that? It would appear to be the opposite of what you're suggesting.

[Martin Eden]

54. The difference is the grounds for impeachment.

It was obvious to most of the nation that Nixon's transgressions required impeachment and that Clinton's did not.

The question now is not whether Bush deserves impeachment, but whether most of the nation can be convinced it is required.

[Seabiscuit]

56. What "voter backlash" did the impeachment of Clinton provoke?

If I recall correctly, the voters, rather than retaliate against the Republicans in Congress who impeached Clinton in 2000, "elected" (OK, they left it to the Supremes for "selection") a Republican pResident, George W. Bush.

To put it all in better perspective, the Democrats held a sizable majority in Congress in 1974. Neither party held a held such a majority in Congress during Clinton's impeachment and neither party does now. Secondly, the 1974 Democratic majority in Congress realized from the beginning (the public reaction to the Saturday Night Massacre in October, 1973) that to appear legitimate to the American people, any impeachment must be a bipartisan effort. And they succeeded in garnishing enough Republican support, even from the outset, to do so. That certainly wasn't the case during the impeachment of Clinton, and that did give the Republicans a black eye (although I still fail to see any voter backlash in the 2000 elections). And Pelosi may or may not rightly fear that there are not yet enough Republicans in Congress willing to support impeachment of Bush for such an effort to be remotely called "bipartisan". I share her concern, but don't know the answer.

The better comparison to 1974 in my mind is that in 1974 as now we have Democrats looking at crimes committed by a sitting President and wondering how best to go about dealing with it. During the Clinton administration you had Republicans looking for a way to impeach Clinton from the moment he was elected in 1992 and waiting 6 years or so for Monica to come along, and whoopdedoo, they had to settle for shaming him for lying about a blowjob. I don't think the Dems risk anything like that now - our biggest problem is making any impeachment appear "bipartisan".

[Exiled in America]

61. Um......what the heck are you talking about?

The "electorial backlash" that game following the Clinton impeachment was a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

That's some amazing backlash.

Stop right there if you're about to make the argument that a republican wasn't "elected" in 2000. You're right, however if your public "backlash" theory had merit, then the 2000 election would not have been close enough to steal!!

Clinton was largely popular at the end of his term, and even after a republican witch hunt they *STILL* made it close enough to get in the White house. Stolen or no, anyway you cut it that's not exactly a huge "backlash."

[Senator]

20. **Everyone** -- We Must Broadcast This

This "news item" from Nichols is something the Euphemedia will never touch. And sadly, that means that even many "movers and shakers" will remain in the dark about the rising chorus (a majority) from the People demanding impeachment.

They succeeded in deflecting the election results into the "Anti-War ghetto" and are frantic to keep that lid on this boiling pot.

But we can fight back by spamming this concise review of the situation all over the internet. Any newspaper forum you can find, any bloggers you know -- have them post it, any place it can gain more visibility. If you "do video," just read parts of it into the camera and tell us where to vote it up on YouTube.

Also FAX and email it to elected officials -- local, state, and federal.

Turn up the volume.

--

[TwilightGardener]

30. Agreed--while Congress shouldn't impeach just because the public

demands it, it's a sure bet they won't touch it if their constituents are quiet. I wish the more moderate Republicans out there would realize the damage Chimpy and Shooter have done to their party (as well as their country) and repudiate them--impeachment would be so much more effective if it was bipartisan in some measure. But we gotta make noise.

[Exiled in America]

62. Why shouldn't they impeach because the public demands it - that's called a DEMOCRACY.

We're supposed to have one right? Oh right, its a "republic" which means a representative democracy.

As long as you have the word democracy in there, it means that even representatives are supposed to do the will of the majority of the people, not their own will.

Maybe we should just stop talking about "democracy" in American since we really haven't had that in all the time I've been alive.

[TwilightGardener]

65. Well, there has to be a sufficient reason (high crime/misdemeanor) that can

be proven with evidence. Otherwise it won't get the votes. I'm sure if they investigate, they will find the shit on Chimpy, Shooter, and Rove--it's just a matter of political will.

[L. Coyote]

31. APRIL 28 is the 20th anniversary of the brutal assasination of BEN LINDER

in Nicaragua by the Reagan-Bush mercenary army bent on the illegal overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. And, the Reagan-Bush propaganda organ juistified their brutality by calling their political enemies "terrorists." Who are the actual terrorists in this scenario?

Viva Ben Linder!

Read more on this at:
Are the Sandinista terrorists on the Texas border yet? Rhetoric to haunt Freeepers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x503712#504746


Another American citizen, also a Portland, Oregon, resident, they murdered in Central America was a reporter at the La Penca press conference.

Viva Linda Frazier!

Let us not forget. Viva La Verdad!!!

[SlowDownFast]

32. K&R. Indeed.

Why Nancy ever said impeachment is off the table is beyond me.

There were already formidable scandals then, and it's grown worse with each news day - and that's not even mentioning Iraq.

[cyberpj]

37. FORKS! FORKS! FORKS! We send roses, why not forks? "STICK A FORK IN HIM, HE'S DONE!" What a photo op

If I wasn't down with bad MS right now (why I'm at home during day) I'd do it myself.
Anyone else up to the task or organizing Forks delivery from DUers to Speaker Pelosi?

I'll also post separately to gauge interest.

[Atman]

39. Forks are way cheaper than roses.

But since they're pointy, BushCo will find a way to claim you mailed the president a weapon of mass dessert or something, and send you off to Siberia for rendition.

.

[cyberpj]

40. You're right. Even plastic forks would get us put on the terror watch list. Again. nt

[Jcrowley]

41. Kick and rec

Create your own custom A28 Impeachment flyer online.

Type in your Headline, Text, Venue Info in center, and Contact info at bottom, then hit the "Create PDF" button. A custom flyer in PDF format will be generated and uploaded to your desktop!

http://www.unitedactivists.org/a28/

Resources:
http://www.a28.org/flyers.shtml

[Hissyspit]

42. April 28!

[DFW]

43. When impeachment was off the table, that was then

It's a very different table now.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. May this fast turn into an epidemic

Let the fever spread!

[KitSileya]

45. This is a wonderful article, k&r for sure, but

if Peter Welch needs to get more details of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors from his constitutents, I can only think one of two things...

Either
he's stalling for time, arranging meeting after meeting and pretending to be interested while waiting for someone else to get enough spine to stand up and actually do something about it

OR

He's so incompetent as a member of Congress, that he doesn't know and understand that what Bush, Cheney, and their cronies are doing is not only criminal, but also highly destructive with regards to the safety and well-being of the Republic.



The elected representatives are there, in Washington. They get the insider info. They read the laws, they hear Bush and his aides speak, both on and off record. They should be more than aware of how dangerous the Bush administration is.

[Kurovski]

47. K&R. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread Hissyspit

[calimary]

50. It's something we simply MUST pursue. And okay, fine then. If the Dems

in Congress will have to be dragged into it by the people, so be it. I'm ready to haul a few myself at this very moment.

We have to. We just HAVE TO. Otherwise we will INDEED be sending a clear signal that this utter criminality and crapping on our Constitution is somehow okay, no big deal, nothing to get all worked up about. You think bush/cheney are the only Machiavellians out there? You think their kind of arrogance and sleaze will stop when they finally retire (or, preferably, are involuntarily retired)? You're kidding yourself if you think so. We who remember nixon thought the gross, flagrant abuses of power and those who schemed and manipulated and lied and cheated and broke the law for them SWORE we'd never see anything that bad, ever again. That was the worst it could possibly be. Yeah, sure. And then came george w. bush. Makes nixon look almost saintly. There WILL be worse than bush (hopefully not in my lifetime, I've had enough of this), and we need to put up irrefutable barricades to let whoever that future wannabe Constitution crapper is that it is NOT okay. It is NOT permitted. It IS ILLEGAL. And NO president, not nixon, not bush, is above the law. NOBODY is above the law. That lesson will be flushed down the toilet if we don't. And God help us for the scheming asshole who decides things can be manipulated again like this (only THIS time, he's gonna get it completely right and have a locked-in dictatorship and imperial presidency and one-party rule, and not have to suffer the kind of closing years forced on bush since January).

Besides, since IMPEACHMENT itself was thoroughly crapped on by the republi-CONS during the Clinton persecution, and turned into a farce and a pathetic, toothless, meaningless joke, IMPEACHMENT ITSELF has to be rehabilitated. IMPEACHMENT was designed to be a MOST serious and sobering response to egregious crimes and abuses of power by the executive branch - not some piss-ant, partisan, sore loserman vendetta against the president of the opposite party whom you simply don't like and you're pissed that he won two terms instead of your guy. IMPEACHMENT needs to be restored to that height again - where it's something to be respected and taken dead-seriously.

[chknltl]

69. And furthermore:

By not impeaching these crime-lords we will have raised the bar for impeachment even higher...perhaps out of reach of future Americans who may be in even more desperate need to reign in another run-amok administration. Does anyone here REALLY want to sell out America's future like this?

Do you ANTI-IMPEACHERS understand that you are all but removing this tool which was given us by our founding fathers? If so, why not just come out and be upfront here: Say it loud and proud, "Democracy is dieing and I am aiding in her death by removing one of the very tools which is there to keep her alive!"

[whistle]

53. Impeach Bush/Cheney now!

[Maryland Liberal]

57. Maybe Pelosi should be Impeached

If she doesnt have the Balls to do the right thing- lets get Hoyer in there - or whomever - to get the impeachment ball rolling...

[mmonk]

68. Someone that will uphold the constitutional checks and balances

over personal ambition or party candidate ambitions needs to hold that position. If Pelosi can't do that, she needs to step down from that position and I'm sorry if that offends anyone here.

[WillyT]

64. K & R !!!

:kick: