What are the stated positions regarding impeachment on the House Judiciary Committee?

[gristy]

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

Wexler is on board - http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article619431.ece
Anybody else thinking about it? How about Wasserman Schultz?

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th


Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

[KingOfLostSouls]

1. Probably not enough

I could see wasserman-schultz bailing, anyone from red state territory as well.

repubs will go lock step "nay" on it. especially with those scumbags issa and sensenbrenner leading the way

[gristy]

2. This article is telling me that Keith Ellison (D Minn 5th) had signed on to impeach Cheney last year

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1895

[The Magistrate]

3. It Will Not Get Out Of Committee, Sir

The proper time to have seriously pressed for this was between Labor Day and Christmas of last year. While the reasons for the Democratic leadership not doing this are sound enough conventional political calculations, and not something that in my view deserves extreme criticism, it is my view that their judgement was mistaken, and that the thing should have been pressed.

Rep. Kucinich did a good thing by reading this Bill into the record on the floor. In some sense it was a 'grandstand play', but in a democracy there is often something to be said for grandstand plays, and this is one of those instances. People should not, however, treat this is a serious development, in the sense of taking it as a harbinger of an actual Bill of Impeachment coming to pass during the current Congress.

[gristy]

4. I view it as a chance for a change in tone and landscape in congress

Not a sea change, but a change none the less. A chance for the committee members to entertain the notion of impeachment, to add their voice to the debate, and to actually sign. These are all good things, whether the bill gets out of committee or not.

But their silence betrays their fear.

[The Magistrate]

6. Fear Of What, Sir?

It is hard to address without knowing what you think they are afraid of.

The conventional calculation is simply that we benefit politically from the continued presence in office of Bush, owing to his tremendous unpopularity, and that when an enemy is doing himself harm, it is best to stand clear and let him get on with it undisturbed.

[seemslikeadream]

9. So will our congress let the world court shame them by doing their job?

UNCOVERING THE TRUTH IS THE FIRST STEP IN RESTORING THIS COUNTRY'S NECESSARY GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ROLL


Philippe Sands says he had talked to a president of a foreign country and has been ask for all his notes. He says that the world is waiting for us to take care of this "torture" thing OR ELSE THE WORLD WILL.




The Bush Administration Torture Trail

Individuals were watching and influenced by the TV program 24

TV show had many friends at Guantanamo.

Three weeks after the beginning of 2nd season of 24 the torture began.


Philippe Sands

Beyond the Torture Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V2XCkGjP5g



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUICm1VH-rQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j38GxxE2CBY


The Green Light: Attorney Philippe Sands Follows the Bush Administration Torture Trail

A new exposé in Vanity Fair by British attorney Philippe Sands reveals new details about how attorney John Yoo and other high-ranking administration lawyers helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons. According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and other top officials personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Sands joins us in our firehouse studio.





Philippe Sands: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPAGNNsrwUw



Jimmy Carter: Talks George Bush & war crimes at Hay Festival
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrWBY2hO6vA

When pressed by Philippe Sands...on Bush's recent admission that he had authorized interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, 'productive life - in our country'" after he leaves the White House. Sands later said that he had "understood that to be 'clear confirmation' that, while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, 'what happened outside the country was another matter entirely.'


Phillipe Sands Discusses Torture and U.S. Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6IU755uFM

On Bill Moyers Journal, human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands discusses his new book on how the U.S. came to abandon the Geneva Convention and accept torture. Sands says Bush administration officials are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions.



Rep. Mike Pence: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTla3-JZhnM

Philippe Sands attempts to enlighten Rep. Pence as to why torture is wrong during his appearance before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules


Rep.John Conyers: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLCNypjK6k

Philippe Sands responds to Rep. Conyers question as to what avenues of inquiry the committee should undertake and expounds upon his testimony before the House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Addington was the leader of the pack, went to Guantanamo himself




Rep.Artur Davis: Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sst5vMpOFx4

David Rivkin tries to claim that the IRA was a different threat but Rep.Davis throws his flawed logic back in his face. Philippe Sands also pointedly rebukes Rivkin assertions. Discussion of Presidental pardons to exonerate torture policies employed is hypothetically touched on. From hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.



Rep.Issa & Rep.Ellison: Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Rules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQKZ5WaTWdA

Philippe Sands responds to the slick and sly Rep.Issa and details his thoughts further upon question by Rep. Ellison during hearing by House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules.

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is One Possibility, Ma'am

It would be very unwise for members of this administration, once out of office, to travel abroad.....

[KingOfLostSouls]

7. I don't think its fear

I think they just know its politically futile for now and are wanting to focus on what they can do, rather than spend day after day debating something that they can't do.

I think every democrat in congress would vote to impeach bush or cheney if they had the votes but they know they don't, it'd be blocked in the senate and a few blue dogs would cross over in the house.

its why feingold tried to push for censureship instead of wanting impeachment, and why conyers is going after rove and the others for now.

right now the most important thing for john conyers to be doing is getting karl rove in front of the house judiciary committee under oath talking about don siegelman and the whole shebang. getting the full scope of corruption lays the groundwork for election victory, which ensures that there won't be a mccain presidency to cover for bush.

[KingOfLostSouls]

5. i'd like to re-iterate this point

from your post


People should not, however, treat this is a serious development, in the sense of taking it as a harbinger of an actual Bill of Impeachment coming to pass during the current Congress.




thats called a political reality. if the stupid chimp is made to pay for his crimes, its going to come after he's out of office. which, in effect, will be ok because he will have no claims of executive privilege to hide behind any longer.

plus I just think conyers is really trying to get rove before he moves onto anyone else. because its not just the presidency, theres the stuff with don siegelman etc etc. bush is just one fish in a whole cesspool of corruption.

[The Magistrate]

8. Nonetheless, O King

No more good is served by extravagant attacks on Rep. Kucinich and his admirers in this connection than is served by extravagant attacks on the Democratic leadership in Congress over this. Divisive rhetoric, aimed by one Democrat at another, by one faction of the Party against another, brings no good result. It is very seldom you will find me citing Reagan favorably, but his 'eleventh commandment, suitably altered to "Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Democrat' is wise advise we ought all take to heart and practice religiously.

Impeachment is a remedy built into the Constitution for crimes of state, for crimes that require high office for their committing. There is no doubt whatever that such crimes have been committed by the present administration, and it does some damage to the fabric of our Republic that they have not been addressed by the remedy prescribed by the Founders. Rep. Kucinich has made at least a symbolic address of this, and that is a good thing. It is no secret here that Rep. Kucinich is far from my favorite Democrat, but credit is owed where it is due.

[KingOfLostSouls]

11. I think everyone would impeach him

I don't think its an unpopular sentiment at all. my point is and remains, theres a political reality to focus on.

grandstandings time has come and passed, we have a president worry about electing and karl rove to get under oath. and if anyone thinks the toughest fight isn't going to be this fall, they're in for a wake up call. the GOP will stop at nothing, NOTHING, to keep us from taking the presidency and all attention should be focused on hammering them. an Obama presidency means all the lies and hate and treason of the GOP will come out and that means more than anything, it should be our focus.

I don't think anyones scared of wanting to impeach bush, I just think they know what can be done and what can't be done. pick the battles you can, its a war of attrition and the smartest wars are always won by those who can see the long view and the big picture, not the short little minor symbolic wins that could end up costing you position in the field. don't give them anything to get behind, don't give them any rhetoric that might get them even a dollar of extra campaign cash, don't do anything to lower the profile of your lead attackers.

wars are won by the person who capitalizes on the mistakes of their enemy, not by who has the biggest or loudest gun.

[The Magistrate]

12. One Of The Problems With That Analysis, O King

Is defining what constitutes victory, or a useful advance.

If victory is defined as removing from office, then yes, at any point, defeat would be certain. The 'trial' in the Senate is purely political, and two thirds would not be secured, at any time between January '07 and January '09. If, however, victory is defined as a continual battering of headlines detail real, serious crimes, and the shaping of public opinion against the defenders of the administration that committed same, and the final feeling that justice was not served by the obviously partisan acquittal, then victory of useful scope could certainly have been had this spring, and would have been a very useful back-drop to our primary campaign. Certainly, even at this late date, what Rep. Kucinich has done is not going to cost us anything, and may gain a little. Anything that focuses attention on the misdeeds of the Republican administration is to the good of the campaign. Our greatest asset is, after all, the great popular distaste for the present Republican administration, which the people greatly desire to repudiate.

[KingOfLostSouls]

13. Heres the problem though

its not so much that the country hates bush, it does, its that the republican party will use it as an excuse to fill their drained party coffers.

if we suddenly made this election about the impeachment of george w. bush, it would take away from promoting our own candidate. his negatives already speak for themselves. but what we don't need is a battered and broken GOP looking for anything to latch onto to use as campaign cash.

"LOOK, THE SOCIALISTS WANT TO TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY!!! SEND US MONEY!!" thats how it'd be used. you gotta learn to think cynical and then you understand how low they'd sink. and yeah, while bush is unpopular with the country, he's still doing good with the GOP hardliners who would dump cash into senate races like in minnesota where we NEED to pick up seats. and it takes the heat off people like karl rove and harriet miers who will continue to stonewall and have the MSM media backing them up every step of the way.

plus with only months left the whole impeach bush thing kinda rings a bit hollow at the very end.

[The Magistrate]

14. They Are Going To Do That Anyway, O King

They always do. Whether an impeachment trial would increase or decrease the response to their appeals is open to debate. There is something to be said for the proposition that the public shaming would decrease the response, through instilling defeatism among the people bombarded by real evidence, and by the popular enjoyment of the spectacle. There is also the counter-balancing effect, that it would certainly energize to even higher degree a great many people on our side, and appeal to a stripe of classic conservative appalled by the state crimes of the administration in regards to violation of privacy, and the execrable and wholly Unconstitutional 'unitary executive' doctrine that has been the ground of most of the administration's crimes.

Your pressing for a focus on figures like Rove and Miers seems like a program to bust button-men rather than the capo: the normal procedure is to take the smaller fish as a way to work up towards the great sharks at the top. As a practical fact, of course, there is not going to be an impeachment, so discussing this as if there were is merely an amusement. What has happened is that a Bill has been read into the Record from the floor, and will probably be re-read, if the threats of its sponsor are not completely hollow. It is not a bad thing, even at this late date, to have floating about in headlines and op-ed columns on occassion.

[KingOfLostSouls]

15. You've got good points

and yeah, it is good to have on the record but at the end of the day its kinda like, wow haven't heard this before.


and I don't think taking rove is really a small fish, I think rove has his fingers in so much of it all that taking him down is the keystone to all the corruption in the GOP dating back within the past 15-20 years. at least since dubya started into politics, plus all of rove's buddies like abramoff and such. he's kinda this lynchpin thats at the root of it all, so taking him down isn't taking a small fish, its removing the key and getting the guy who knows everything. you destroy him, you destroy the past 15 years of conservatism in one swoop.