My Representative responds on possible impeachment

[AntiFascist]

My Representative, Lois Capps, has responded to a letter expressing support for initiating impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. There was no mention that this issue had been moved off the table. Instead, her response included the following:

You will be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of H.Res . 635, which would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouragement of torture, and its retaliation against critics. Furthermore, the committee would be tasked with making recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

...

I have also joined several colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately order the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate reports of the NSA's secret spying on Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I am also a cosponsor of H.Res. 643, which would direct the Attorney General to release to the House of Representatives all documents in his possession relating to the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. I agree with you that the President must demonstrate to Congress and the public that his administration's actions are consistent with the laws of the United States.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Hmmm... maybe they're just hiding it under the tablecloth?

:bounce:

Visualize IMPEACHMENT. Then do something to make it happen.

NGU.

[bobbolink]

8. A matzo impeachment?

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

15. I'm suddenly culturally illiterate here!! Help me bobbo...

What happens with the matzo?

:hi: you!

NGU.

[LittleClarkie]

23. It gets hidden at the Passover feast

I think the youngest child has to go and find it, or half of it, anyway.

This from a Gentile, so take with a grain of kosher salt.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Ahhh...

I love all the playful Jewish holiday traditions.

:hi: LC...

NGU.

[bobbolink]

38. I'm rather illiterate on this also, but I'll try... how's that... ^_^

During a Seder (Jewish Passover meal), a matzo is hidden under a napkin, or plate or something like that, for a child to find.

So, impeachment hidden under the table cloth...

OK, it was weak, but at the time it made sense..

~~gigglesnort~~ :hi:

edit: I see someone else answered it for you...

Now you're ready for the quiz... :)

[ClassWarrior]

41. ~ding-ding~

What is matzo, Alex!

NGU.

[AntiFascist]

22. Yummmm, matzo balls

<warning: this was not a sexist remark>

[LittleClarkie]

24. (groucho)I didn't know matzos even had balls(/groucho)

heh.

[bobbolink]

39. ewwww, kreplach...

:hi:

[Redbear]

2. It is off the table pending all these investigations.

Go Lois!

[Demobrat]

3. Pelosi has never said that

impeachment was off the table PERMANENTLY, if I recall.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Actually, I prefer my IMPEACHMENT on a silver platter...

...so technically it'd be off the table.

:evilgrin:

Visualize it.

NGU.

[Demobrat]

19. Would you settle for a stealth impeachment?

Personally I think it has a better chance of happening if it doesn't appear to be the first thing on the agenda. Impeachment will be the logical next step when and "if" improprieties are found when they start looking into 9/11, the war etc. Of course that's a big "if" ..... NOT! :-)

[ClassWarrior]

20. When did I ever say it should be the first thing on the agenda?

All I've ever said is that we need to advocate for it loudly and often, so that the public will be ready to accept it when the evidence is revealed through investigations, hearings, and tearful confessions. Our elected Dems can't advocate for it now. That'd look irresponsible and vengeful. WE need to do it as their surrogates.

Please don't assume.

NGU.

[bobbolink]

40. The first thing on the agenda should be restoring the cuts that were made to Medicaid,

and the other poverty programs!

Why should poor people continue to die from these cuts???

[AntiFascist]

5. In case anyone is interested, Sen. Feinstein outlines the actual...

procedure as follows:

In the process of impeachment of a president, the House of
Representatives acts as the prosecutor, bringing the charges against
the President. The Senate acts as the jury and the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court acts as the judge, together responsible for trying
the President.

So it is, in fact, very much like a judicial procedure.

[Demobrat]

6. The same Supreme Court that installed him

is going to impeach him? I doubt it. Waste of time. As cathartic as it would be, personally I'd rather see this Congress concentrate on quality of life issues that affect us all than impeachment. Better to be known as the party of the people than the party of petty revenge (and of course that's how it would get spun, 24/7).

[AntiFascist]

7. Impeachment is decided by a simple majority in the House....

2/3 of the Senate is responsible for the decision to indict. The role of the judge, in this case the Chief Justice, I assume would be the same as the role of a judge in a jury trial.

[Demobrat]

9. In which case not a few Repub Senators

would have to vote for impeachment .... not gonna happen. Not that I'm against impeachment. I would LOVE to see W impeached. But I'd rather see Dems become overwhelmingly popular for making a real, noticeable difference in real people's real lives. No worries about the Pukes getting back in power then. I'll settle for that, happily.

[puebloknot]

11. With respect...

...because there are a lot of thoughtful people weighing in on the relative merits of impeachment, I wonder if you would "settle for that happily" if you had lost a son or daughter in Iraq.

The Catholic Church has "settled for that happily" by sending pedophile priest off to retreat houses, rather than seeing them held accountable for their crimes,and their victims are left holding the emotional baggage for the rest of their lives.

Crimes have been committed against this country, our laws have been broken, and how it would be spun if we begin impeachment proceedings should be of no concern to us. Staying in power by looking the other way will only prolong our long nightmare. Failure to convict because of a lack of Republican votes would be a matter of public record, and yet another indicator, for history, how far this country has fallen.

"Petty revenge?" I think not. The very foundation of law, historically, is by definition holding to account those who break that law. This country can make a noticeable difference in real people's real lives most notably by honoring the laws this country was founded on. Increasing the minimum wage is of utmost importance, but it will be of little value if we do not restore the right to a fair trial to every citizen, and if we do not show the world that we have not lost completely the virtues that once caused half the world to want to come to our shores.

I find it truly disturbing to see the number of my fellow Americans who want to take a pragmatic approach and move on, leaving all those who have lost loved ones in this illegal war to grieve endlessly, wondering what the sacrifice of their lives was for.

And to those who want to "take the high road and forgive," I turn again to Nelson Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Before there can be forgiveness, there must be an acknowledgement of guilt, and amends must be made.

It will be to our eternal shame if we let Bushco just walk away from their documented crimes, with no penalty. I'll never settle for that happily!

[Demobrat]

13. Impeachment won't bring anybody back.

Or restore anybody's health, mental or physical. Better to concentrate on ending the war now and using some of the money to fund veteran's services.

[puebloknot]

16. True, and taking care of our veterans should be at the top of the list.

I assure you I appreciate that; to wit: My father was a veteran of World War II, and he died within days of being unceremoniously ejected from a Veterans' hospital because he didn't fit a particular, newly instituted profile. My mother did receive a nicely folded American flag at the funeral, however.


Standing up to homegrown tyranny just might bring back our lost moral standing in the world. We don't want to merit our reputation as a "throw-away society." We don't want to show the world that we are careless of our own children's lives in throwing them away in yet another illegal war. How many times will we, as a country, just move on because judicial action "won't bring anyone back."

Germany appears to have learned these lessons from their experience in World War II. Although it was the Allied Powers, and not the war-worn German people, who held the Nazi government to account at Nuremberg. How very ironic that Germany holds the moral high ground today with reference to the United States of America!

A good metaphor for "moving on" is, in my view, the whited sepulcher. The rotting carcass of American Democracy is removed from public view, in deference to "political harmony."

How can we even think of it?

[Senator]

35. It will "bring back" Our National Soul

Or at least begin to.

It would separate the American People from liability/culpability for what has been done -- in all our names -- by this never-elected, never-legitmate criminal regime.

It would get our once-great nation "off the hook" and allow us to begin to make amends.

Don't you think veterans might be willing to take a back seat for a while to that?

--

[Demobrat]

36. No I think that should take a back seat

to the people who have suffered the most. Our veterans. Impeachment will happen in good time.

[Senator]

42. And for those that are suffering now?

Tied in a stress position in a detainee cell? And the future veteran whose psyche is being shredded by being ordered to do such things to his fellow man?

Nothing short of impeachment will stop that. How long do we tell them is "good time?"

--

[ClassWarrior]

43. Or to prevent such things from happening in the future.

We do need to take care of those who have suffered and are suffering, but we also do what it takes to prevent the same kind of suffering from being repeated. And that means standing tough against this misAdministration**.

NGU.

[Demobrat]

44. I don't agree that W must be impeached

in order to stop the war. In fact I think stopping the war should take precedence over impeachment. Major precedence. Of course if impeachment happens in the course of re-evaluating and stopping the war (which I think it will), that works too.

[Senator]

45. We stop nothing without impeachment

But more importantly, we stop being blameless.

Once "in power," the Dems stand against it or they stand by and allow it. All of it.

It really is that simple.

--

[KharmaTrain]

46. These Crimes Deserve True Criminal Not Political Prosecution

I agree totally with what you've been posting. The proper justice these people desire can't or won't be done by 435 partisan representatives and 100 senators with their fingers to the political winds. It can only be done in a court of law...preferably in the Hague...and where all the evidence that can be gathered in the next two years can be used to present a very compelling case.

By going after just boooosh and/or cheney, many others who were complicit in these crimes will be allowed to slip away and then the only punishment to boosh & cheney is to send them home. And it still doesn't end this insane war or right any wrongs to our civil liberties and the Constitution. An impeachment detracts from all of that.

The corporate media would love an impeachement circus...it would anger the country like the Clinton inquisition and be viewed as a petty Democratic party vendetta. It would make it difficult for the Democrats to hold the major gains we made last week and move forward to rectify so much of what has been wrong.

Let's investigate and do it smart...bring every scrap of this regime's corruption to light and use that as the platform to expand our majority and maintain it for years to come. I want justice, but I want real justice. Real crimes were committed. By getting so much of this muck out in the open it would also force whomever comes after booosh NOT to pardon or face political destruction.

Thank you for your rational points...

:hi:

[AntiFascist]

47. I agree that thorough investigations are the way to go...

but I would disagree on the point that impeachment necessarilly anger the country. I think it is the other way around. The revelations that Bush possibly mislead our country into war, the corruption underlying much of the motive, together with our poor performance in this war, has angered people to the point that Bush and Cheney's approval ratings are once again very low. Many Republicans are now angry with the administration. Impeachment, if presented by the prosecuting Representatives in such a way as to necessitate deep investigation, and as a matter to redeem our people in the eyes of the world, may be more accepted than you realize.

[Demobrat]

50. We don't need impeachment proceedings to justify investigations.

Investigations can and will happen from the opening gavel onward. Now, should thorough investigations, real investigations, into 9/11, the runup to the war, profiteering from the war itself, etc etc happen to uncover impeachable and/or criminal offenses, said offenses should be swiftly dealt with in the appropriate manner ( impeachment and/or my personal preferance - arrest and trial) at that time. Personally, I have no doubt that when the truth comes out they will all be frog-marched out of the White House yet - all of them, not just W.

[Greyhound]

12. How do you think we're going to get any of these "quality of life issues"

through the executive while the squatters are still there?

Just wondering...

[Demobrat]

14. By making it untenable for him to veto.

If bills are put in front of him that have major popular support he won't dare veto. As it stands now the issue doesn't come up.

[puebloknot]

17. "Untenable" hasn't worked so far!

For your thesis to hold up, we would have to assume that the executive is possessed of a rational mind. Au contraire, I don't think he is capable of making reasoned decisions.

[Demobrat]

18. No but his handlers are.

And if they want to regain power and hold on to the presidency they will have to take their cues from The Gropenator (who suddenly six months before the election became Mr. Environmentally Concerned) for the next two years. I don't think they'll dare let him veto a minimum wage bill, for instance, or anything with too much popular support. Which is why it's important to get as much as possible done for the people who have suffered so much for the last six years in the next two.

Look, like I said, I WOULD LOVE to see W impeached. But - I'd rather see couples working four minumum wage jobs to feed their kids be able to cut back to three. And veterans benefits improved exponentially. And lots of other things. W's impeachment won't makes things one whit better for the 50-year old customer service rep who's job just got shipped overseas. Universal health care and repeal of that travesty of a bankruptcy law might, though.

[puebloknot]

25. Yes, but....:)

Indeed, all these things would improve the everyday lives of Americans.

The "but" is that if there is no attention to justice, no setting of an example by a leadership that shows some *moral* and *ethical* guidance, we are just continuing to dumb down America, and keep their attention on the television and the Big Mac.

People in Germany followed Hitler to their own doom because they looked to him as a leader who would make their lives more economically tenable after the First World War, and through the desperate economic situation they were living through.

All the glassy-eyed talk about holding our leaders to a high ethical and legal standard means little to someone who is sleeping in the park, or who never has time to be with their family. That's certainly true.

A massive amount of evidence has already been gathered against this administration. I don't buy it that we can't take care of the above business, and turn part of our resources to legal matters, all at the same time.

Nice talking with you!

[Demobrat]

31. Oh I think the impeachment business will be taken care of

as a natural offshoot of the investigations that we already know will happen. I just wouldn't like to see it as the stated purpose of the incoming congress, when so many people need help NOW, for both political (I think it would make us look bad) and practical reasons.

[puebloknot]

37. I hope...

...and as much as I can, trust, that you are right!

[rosesaylavee]

29. We are not looking for catharsis or revenge.

We are reinstating the rule of law. We are currently in a constitutional crisis and what Congress does in the next 12 months will determine if our constitution will remain the vital document it has been for the first 200 years of our country.

IMHO, if we proceed without impeachment we will not be able to regain any moral high ground internationally as was previously enjoyed by every other administration. Impeachment is a necessary step in regaining other country's (and our allies's)trust in our system of justice and re-establishing our democracy. For the good of the country, for our troops overseas in harms way, for our future standing in the international community, impeachment (at least if not indictment) is the only way.

A good poster here on DU you may want to read on this is H2O Man - one post here is one of many he has written on the topic... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2659066

Peace.

[loyalsister]

28. Exactly

The prosecutor can not "come to the table" with assumptions before a thorough investigation has taken place.

[Senator]

34. No, not exactly

These comparisons to the justice system are almost entirely misleading. Impeachment merely has the trappings of a "prosecution and trial." It is wholely a political process.

Therefore the "charging body" of the House is bound by nothing but their own good sense.

They can take up Articles of Impeachment (many exist as "proposals") on the first day of the new Congress if they wish.

--

[Senator]

33. That is False: The Senate is "Judge" too

All the Chief Justice does is "preside." He has no stated authority or powers. The Senate can change the procedure at any time.

They can vote to overrule anything he might say or even remove him.

Basically he's there to marshall an orderly procedure -- always with the Senate's consent.

--

[Hepburn]

10. Here is a link to a page with full info on that resolution...

...it shows who the co-sponsors are:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00635:@@@L&summ2=m&

[AntiFascist]

21. Thanks Hepburn!

I recall when this bill was introduced several months ago, but I didn't know where it stood at the moment. There are 38 cosponsors. Looks like the status is still: "Referred to the House Committee on Rules."

[shance]

26. Lois Capps = top notch.

Wish we had more like her.

[earth mom]

27. A glimmer of good news just in time for the holidays...

:bounce:

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. About that Special Counsel appointment

It makes me uneasy to think the Gonzo would be making the appointment. Particularly since he's been in the thick of it.

I don't know what the answer is in terms of appointing someone, though. We certainly don't want a Ken Starr fiasco. Maybe Fitzie can put his two cents into a candidate.

[Vidar]

48. Kudos to you & Ms. Capps.

[chknltl]

49. On a quasi related note:

My representative Jim McDermott was against this Iraq fiasco from the get-go. He went to Iraq just prior to the invasion and reported back, doing a lecture on the topic which I saw on C-SPAN. Two things stand out for me from that prewar lecture. The first was Jim McDermott's assertion: "This is NOT about WMD, it is instead about regime change". The second was his reporting on the effects of Depleted Uranium oxide poisoning on the Iraqi children. Largely unreported in the media, Representative McDermott and Senator Cantwell, (both Washington State), have worked hard on the topic of DU poisoning, here is a link to their latest amendment:
http://www.washblog.com/story/2006/10/3/151021/179
I know that Jim McDermott has researched this quite extensively, his background as a Medical Doctor has him absolutely appalled at the effects of DU poisoning. I suspect this newest bill may be worth a watch. Perhaps it will become another bomb-shell blowing up over "Bagdad-Bushco" :patriot: