Impeachment

Americans like to complain. Grassroots progressives, myself included, in particular like to complain. Sometimes I have seen the complaints become almost an obsession, to the detrement of actually getting things done. Nader is a perfect example of this. I have seen progressive apathy or even antipathy sink some of the most progressive and honest candidates you could ever imagine. This is the danger of being on the forefront of progress. You can get ahead of yourself, ahead of everything and wind up all alone.

Impeachment, Iraq and winning elections. Right now these really are about the most critical things. And these three things are what we really need to work hard at if we want to be a significant force in politics...and in society. I want to discuss some specific examples of people who really need our help and they deserve it because they are taking strong stands for impeachment and/or against the Iraq war. We need them...but they also need us. They need our time and our money to win so that they can fight for what we think is right.

In 2006 an amazing coalition of mainstream moderates and grassroots progressives created a tidal wave of change in Congress. Many have complained that we didn't get what we expected from our new Congress...but don't let the complaints get in the way of appreciating that what we did was amazing.

It was a damned good effort and I am proud to have been a part of it.

Impeachment is being whispered everywhere I go. And, since I live in NYC, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony Weiner are among those who immediately are brought up when the issue comes up. I have several email discussions going about it. I see diaries on Daily Kos about it. And when I got to local Democratic club parties and meetings I hear it brought up.

Here, in progressive Brooklyn it comes down to this question I get asked a hundred times:

Are Anthony Weiner and Jerrold Nadler supporting Yvette Clarke on impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Oddly, no one asks me about Velasquez and Rangel...or even Towns, who HAS signed on with Clarke.

The bottom line is this: I am being asked several times a day (whether I want it or not!) who in NYC is backing impeachment.

The simple answer is this: Yvette Clarke and Ed Towns are signed on to impeachment. No one else in NYC has so far.

Anthony Weiner has, at an event I attended, denigrated impeachment. Since then I am told by about a dozen people that Weiner has changed his tune and is in favor of impeachment. On Sunday I ran into him at a local party, but I didn't challenge him on the issue. So I am still split between what I personally heard, where he rejected impeachment, and what I am told by others, that he has come around.

But then there is Jerrold Nadler, a Congressional Rep I tend to like alot.

There has been a movement dogging Jerrold Nadler, confronting him on the impeachment issue...even driving him to losing his cool and yelling at people who have then told me about these confrontations. Nadler, who I generally think of as dealing with confrontation well, has been going berserk when confronted on this particular issue.

HQ of the indefatigable David Swanson, "After Downing Street is a nonpartisan coalition working to expose the lies that launched the war (and the one that keeps it going) and to hold accountable its architects through impeachment."

Viggo Mortensen has failed me and the world miserably. It's a Friday morning and the world is still not a better place all because of Viggo. It is Friday morning and I still don't have my legs wrapped around the lefty-commie-pino hunkiness that is Viggo Mortensen.

He is not only one of the first celebrities against the war, but he is the first one to call for the impeachment of George Bush. He has gone so far as to visit Iraq after publishing a book about the occupation. And when he came back, right before going back to filming, the man campaigned for an anti-war Democrat in New York state.

The problem is, he is still not betwixt my legs.

So I've tried to quit him.

Then he goes on the Colbert Report and does this :

I hate you Viggo Mortensen. How dare you make me laugh. I hate Stephen Colbert even more. How dare you enlist Stephen Colbert to turn me on with your sense of humor.

I swear, pull this off one more time and you'll be dead to me.

There is a radical, left wing conspiracy afoot in America...The National Coalition of American Nuns!

(photo lifted from PBS)

This is from the Winston-Salem Journal (also covered on Daily Kos):

“The National Coalition of American Nuns is impelled by conscience to call you to act promptly to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for ... high crimes and misdemeanors,” the group wrote in a letter written on behalf of its board members...

The letter was approved during a mid-August meeting of the board, held in Chicago. During that same meeting, the board unanimously adopted statements opposing all war and affirming peacemaking efforts. “Rather than continuing support of a just-war theory, a more compassionate church would oppose all war and teach peacemaking skills for all levels of government and interpersonal conflict resolution,” the statement reads.

The board also adopted statements pledging to work to “moderate the impact we make on planet Earth,” and supporting nuclear disarmament and relief efforts for the poor in Africa.

Memorandum is off the hook this morning with news that Alberto Gonzales has resigned as US Attorney General.

There are cheers and jeers all around the blogosphere for what many consider the worst Attorney General to the worst Presidency in the history of the United States. The press release from Ralph Neas over at People For the American Way better encapsulates what a lot of people in the blogosphere are saying :

The Ennabler General

It’s high time this attorney general resigned. Alberto Gonzales was the 'Enabler General' for the imperial Bush presidency. He undermined the Constitution, made a mockery of the rule of law, and turned the Justice Department into an arm of the Bush Administration’s political operation.

Gonzales protected the interests of George W. Bush over the interests of the American people at every turn. He oversaw a Justice Department that was twisted to serve political interests, from the president’s domestic spying program to bogus allegations of voting fraud that kept minorities and poor people from the ballot box. He showed open contempt for oversight by Congress, and gave testimony under oath that was at best incompetent and at worst, deliberately untrue.

...

Now, it’s time to heal the Justice Department, and find a new attorney general who will restore integrity to the office.

To me though, what's really is important is how Gonzales' fall is not just a foible of his character. To me what is important here is how the Bush administration has used the idea of "diversity" to empower into corruption racial, ethnic and gender minorities.

I’m thinking Southern Democrats, some when I was young and some when I am old. And now I’m in a quandary. What about those Blue Dogs?
What I’m not thinking about is George Wallace, who got tired of being a Democrat by the time JFK was president. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say how much Taylor Branch’s trilogy on the King Years brought home changes which happened in mid-20th-Century. Much has happened since Harry Truman issued an order to integrate the military, which was the first blow to the bigotry of separate but equal patriotism.
From the time of 1864 to 1964, there was denial of the “shadow,” as Toni Morrison portrayed it. She lectured on how all American literature had references to what we call the race question. But if you want deep thoughts turn to another Nobel Prize winner, Martin Luther King and his belief in non-violence. I can’t help but remember his mentor Ghandi, which makes me drift off to the great work his grandson has done in Memphis, and now in the Boston area. As MLK was learning how to learn from those he wanted to lead, he realized that the people are the deciders. Myles Horton, a political activist who held workshops in the early days of the SCLC’s assertion that voting was king, is one of the Tennesseans who made a difference.
But now, to the Blue Dogs. Of the 18 Democrats who voted with the Republicans on the FICA “fix” 10 were from southern states. Seven of the votes were from northern states. Two Tennesseans in the list were Lincoln Davis (4th Dist) and John Tanner (5th Dist), who is considered to have started the Blue Dogs.

Yesterday's pardon - and yes, it was for all practical intents and purposes exactly that - of Scooter Libby by George Bush is a clear and flagrant abuse of power, intended to thwart an ongoing investigation and to undermine the proper administration of justice.

That is Nixon territory. Hence, George Bush must be impeached by the U.S. House and brought to trial in the Senate.

The New York Times lays out the case here:

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

The literature on the Presidential power of pardon is extensive, and it is clear: this power exists as a means to temper justice with mercy.

It is not intended to save Presidents from undue scrutiny, nor to shut up loyal retainers under investigation for acts committed in the service of the White House. This, however, is the effect of this pardon; not to put too fine a point on it, Bush issued it on the same day that a Federal court informed Scooter Libby that he would have to wait out his current appeal in jail.

That's what raises this from a question of Presidential privilege to an abuse of power: clemency is a last resort of mercy when all other options have been exhausted.

George W. Bush commutes Scooter Libby's 30-month jail sentence for lying under oath and obstruction of justice in the Plame Case. This proves that he not only runs the White House like a mafia but, if he could, he would whack all of Congress and run a totalitarian government.

Raw Story reports:

Libby did not receive a pardon, but he did have his 30 month jail sentence commuted by President Bush. He remains guilty of the felonies of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in the federal investigation of the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. He will also pay a $250,000 fine.

I challenge any republican to justify this move and try to rationalize it as anything other than being a good Xian. This is the biggest F**k you Bush could have given to Congress. As John Conyers' said, "this decision is inconsistent with the rule of law". With this commuting Bush is sending a strong message that he approves of lying under oath and breaking the law for political gain.

Nancy Pelosi also has some harsh words for Bush:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The media are uncharacteristically agog over a bit of a mishap to befall George Bush at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. It appears that Dear Leader has a bit of a 'stomach ailment' that is keeping him from participating in meetings this morning.

The story is being run with these photos.

Yeah, baby, we've all had that kind of stomach ailment.

Just yesterday I wrote on Daily Gotham about my new Congressional Rep, Yvette Clarke, becoming the fifth Congress Critter to officially call for impeachment of Dick Cheney. Clarke has signed on to Dennis Kucinich's bill, HR 333, which are articles of impeachment against Cheney. For the full text of HR 333, go here.

Back in February I began advocating the impeachment of George Bush based on the exact articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, an arguement widely discussed by former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, who was part of the House committee that DID impeach Nixon. If anyone can be said to be an expert on impeaching a president, Liz is one of them.

George W. Bush pesonally authorized about 45 wiretaps without any court approval. He has also publically admitted that he has done this.

This is precisely what is covered in Article 2 of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon adopted by a bipartisan vote in Congress. Bush is guilty of a crime that was part of the Nixon impeachment. No new case has to be built from scratch, although Liz Holtzman ALSO argues for several more articles of impeachment built around several other areas where Bush has violated the law and/or his oath as President. But the framework for impeachment based on illegal wiretapping already exists from 1974.

Oh yes peeps. It's on. Like Grey Poupon (with a nod and wink to to Ron M.). I'll be hanging out at our IMPEACHAT ROOM.

If you are part of a Drupal site, you can log in to our site using the following login trick :

DRUPAL_SITE_ID@YOUR_DRUPAL_SITE.COM

So if you are part of the Drupal.org, you can log into culturekitchen like this :

your-drupal.org-ID@drupal.org

See you there.

In light of all the IMPEACHMENT events happening all around the country, I will be here tomorrow from 11am to 1pm to chat about IMPEACHMENT.

This from Democrats.com email :

As AfterDowningStreet.org's David Swanson reports this morning:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "Impeachment May Well Be the Only Remedy"

Remarks on the floor of the U.S. House, March 15, 2007
www.kucinich.us

This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.

The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.

I have been for impeachment ever since it became clear to me that we were being "led" by a "president" who was corrupt, a criminal, lying to get us into wars, violating the Constitution, etc. But for various reasons I wasn't relly anxious to see impeachment attempted. It seemed too hard to make the case, too divisive when I wanted to see Democrats seen as the reasonable, uniting force in America, and I wanted to see Democrats get some things accomplished rather than be seen as obstructionist.

Several things have largely changed my mind. What crystalized it was meeting former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, at my local Democratic Club this last week. You see, Liz Holtzman was a member of the House of Representatives in the early '70's and was one of the people who constructed the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. She has written a book on the topic called "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" and her top arguement for impeachment is based on an exact precedent from 1974. In other words, Bush has committed one act for which there already is an article of impeachment constructed, written and voted on in Congress. All that needs to be done is for the current Congress to apply the 1974 precedent to our current President.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in getting things done and if something isn't going to work you don't put a lot of time into it. So, I have been reluctant to support impeachment even though I feel the grounds are certainly there. When people talk impeachment I am tentatively interested, but I have tended to want to focus more on exposing Republican corruption to dispel the myth of the "moral" party, build the Democrats as the reasonable, effecitve, fiscally responsible and reformist party, and win some seats in Congress. Impeachment seemed like an impossible dream that could become a very damaging nightmare.

It's ironic, isn't it; George Bush, currently (illegally and illegitimately in my view) residing in the White House, is set to give the annual State of the Union address tonight to a joint session of Congress, one of the few regular imperial spectacles of the American Republic.

But the only thing people are talking about is the question of who's going to be giving that speech in two years (as an aside, the Democratic insider conversation right now concerns the extent of the expected electoral cataclysm should Hillary Clinton secure the nomination. The word of the day: ruinous).

There's a lesson in all of these conversations: George Bush is a political corpse. With two years left in his term, people are ready to be rid of the man; and by people, clearly, we're not just talking about Democrats.

At some point in the next few months, Bush will, if present trends continue on their steady march, become a greater liability for republicans in office than removed from it. The day will likely dawn when defending the political corpse of George Bush will become too politically painful and expensive for republicans; at which point, the country can begin to have the serious conversation about impeachment that our Constitution demands.

If you're watching the speech tonight, pay close attention to who claps, and how hard. The extent of the customary adulation rendered to the office, not the man, may be significantly less than expected.

President Bush's tactics prove crude. He marked his terrority in Iraq by urine washing the sand, monkey style. He wiped his ass with our constitution and waves his accomplishments in the air alongside that organ grinder, Dick Cheney. And now he must have decided to go full force with the monkey functions by spewing his diarrhea of the mouth to convince millions of Americans that despite the wishes of Congress, it is his duty to send those 21,000 troops to Iraq BY GOD. (Hey, I'm a southerner; I can get away with the phrase because I don't sound nasal.) Anyway, today I felt such disgust with the state of my country that I thought about what it would be like to put President Bush and his fellow upset tummy tree dwellers on trial for war attrocities and financial crimes.

This subject provokes a lot of ire. I figure I am past the point of worrying about ruffling a few feathers. I mean, that attitude helped Bush gain eight years in office. So let's get real and talk about what you think he should be tried for and why. And if you don't agree he should be put on trial, why not?

And by trial, I don't mean impeachment. That may be the first step, but I hope not the last. I mean on criminal trial here in the States for both charges. I think that is a stronger statement; I have yet to witness an impeachment that impressed me. I realize he could be tried by the International Criminal Court, but they usually only intervene when a country is unable to hold the trial itself. However, doing it internationally might send a meaningful message.

Saddam Hussein was hanged just one crime against humanity, and not for the scores of crimes he committed during his decades long dictatorship.

How come, then, can't we impeach George Bush on the following 10 crimes?

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
   
   

The constitution provides for the removal from office of the President and Vice-President for what it terms 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'. As does so much else in our constitutional system, the idea of impeachment derives from English law. Despite their illegitimacy, impeachment and removal are therefore the legal avenue (of several available) that seems most apt for dealing with George Bush and Dick Cheney.

In judicial terms, impeachment is comparable to an indictment; at the Federal level, a simple majority of the House of Representatives is required to vote out Articles of Impeachment. These are then presented to the United States Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice, where a super-majority of two thirds is required for conviction and removal.

Notably, The Federalist Papers make clear that impeachment is a political, as opposed to a judicial, process.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

It may be the season.

It may be the lack of sunshine.

It may well be that I am eager to move into a different direction and try something new.

For now, I'm sick of politics.

I'm sick of Diebold machines and too-close to call dubiously recounted elections.

I am sick of more Iraqis being blown up into smithereens and having most of the US' mainstream media still not call it a civil war.

I am sick of hearing pollsters say Obama, McCain and Giuliani stand a chance of getting elected to the presidency.

I am sick of Hillary too.

I am sick of having my kids be escorted to their backpacks in our post office because the government now thinks it OK to treat a 6 year-old with the same level of paranoia that gets the Lincoln Memorial closed down.

The week started in Philadelphia on Saturday. I went to the launch of Impeach For Change at, of all places, Constitution Hall. I was there to discuss with other bloggers the importance of keeping the matter of George Bush's impeachment on the table. Not for political vendetta but as a matter of constitutional crisis.

Then on Tuesday on to Barnard College, where with 5 other feminist bloggers we discussed the state of the feminist blogosphere and what opportunities and obstacles lie ahead.

Hours later I hopped on a train to go down to Washington DC. I was slated to give a workshop on blogging with Chris Rabb of Afro-netizen, Bill Densmore of Media Giraffe and Faiz Shakir of Think Progress. I swear, an hour and a half is just not enough for tackling all the questions of concerned of people who want to use new media tools like blogs but just don't know how.

Let's say I am DYING to follow up on all these conference. Give me until tomorrow. I'm running out to pick up my kids at school. Also, the week is not over yet. I still have Rootscamp to attend.

Be a matriot.

Buy the t-shirt ...
or the coffee mug ...
or the thong ...

David Swanson published this past Tuesday a great strategy piece on the call to impeach Vice-President Cheney in Impeach Cheney First | ImpeachPAC

We should impeach Vice President Dick Cheney first, and President George Bush immediately thereafter. This idea is not original with me. It's been seen on bumper stickers for quite some time. My attention has been called to it by the fact that Congresswoman and Judiciary Committee Member Maxine Waters is talking about it. See below.

I'm persuaded of the value of this approach for several reasons. Among activists who very much want impeachment, one can hear a long list of fears and concerns about how things might go wrong, how impeachment could help Republicans who come around and back it, how impeachment could take energy away from elections, etc. But by far the most common of the nonsensical fears one hears is this one: "Impeaching Bush would give us Cheney, who is worse."

By proposing to impeach Cheney first, we eliminate this fear.

I did not write a whole article about this back in October of 2005 because I was still hot and bothered by my imaginary boyfriend's call for the impeachment of George Bush. I was so wetted by Viggo Mortensen's political sexy-beast sweet-talk (because, you know, he did that only for me and nobody else), that there is only a quick comment of mine making reference to Cheney first. Some smelling salts, a little photoshopping and a CafePress store later and,