BREAKING: 4 US Reps for Cheney Impeachment

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22394

BREAKING: 4 US Reps for Cheney Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-05-11 18:01. Impeachment

By Matthew Cardinale, Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Albert Russell Wynn (D-MD) has become the fourth total co-sponsor of US Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) bill to impeach Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. In addition to Kucinich, the other two Members of Congress who have signed on to H. Res 333 are US Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) and William Lacy Clay (D-MO).

Wynn’s press secretary did not return calls this morning regarding the matter, but as usual, we will append any comment from the Congressman’s Office here.

Impeachment activist Tracie Stern of Atlanta World Can't Wait said the new co-sponsorships are exciting, but at the same time, the case for impeachment is so clear that these Members of Congress are actually just doing their duty.

Those Members who do not co-sponsor H Res 333 are enabling the Bush Adminstration, Stern said, adding "People need to step on to the stage of history."

US Rep. Wynn (D-MD) is a champion of civil rights issues, but unlike Clay, Kucinich, and Schakowsky, he is not a Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This suggests the bill is gaining appreciation beyond the traditional impeachment constituency of the CPC. Of course, Kucinich himself had not supported H Res 635 either.

more...

[originalpckelly]

1. Bout damn time!

Get the dirty bastardo out!

[Greeby]

2. That progressive challenge in the primary last year lit a fire under his ass?

Works for me :bounce:

[ananda]

3. It's a start.

nt

[L. Coyote]

4. NIXON'S (and Bush's?) Presidential Death Knell = "attempting to stop the wheels of justice"

MORE: Fri Apr-20-07 = http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x715123

[L. Coyote]

5. K&R. I voted for impeachment by sending $3.33 to Kucinich? n/t

[Raksha]

10. I sent $6.66. First Cheney, then Bush.

Besides, I really liked the symbolism!

[L. Coyote]

19. I can't wait to see his campaign finance report.

:rofl:

[bigwillq]

6. A thank you to those brave leaders.

:bounce:

[Annces]

13. Ditto

:bounce:

[partylessinOhio]

7. A small SURGE coming...

growing slowly but growing steady...

[lonestarnot]

22. Yeah!

[deutsey]

8. Gee, I can't imagine why our liberal news media aren't all over this

:eyes:

[Tuesday_Morning]

9. The Off-the-Table excuses...

from dlindorff at Dailykos

<snip>

...are either specious or based upon flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:

Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it.

Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand.

Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act.

Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.

<snip>

Excuse 5 and much more at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/9/103358/4498

[WilliamPitt]

11. Does that list explain how to get 67 Senators on board?

[partylessinOhio]

12. Most persons cannot admit they backed these losers because

they would also admit they lacked good judgement.

[muffin1]

14. The group is getting larger!

Also, Larry Wilkerson (Colin Powell's ex-chief-of -staff) was on the news last night (CNN?) calling for impeachment! A staunch Republican, no less!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[babylonsister]

15. And don't forget the generals! Welcome to DU, muffin1!

:hi:

[muffin1]

16. Thanks!

Great to be here!:hi:

[bonito]

17. K&R n/t

[Kurovski]

18. K&R. (nt)

[wtmusic]

20. Now's the time to call OUR reps..mine, and yours

and tell them it's time to "step on to the stage of history".

K&R

[Klukie]

21. kick

[Vidar]

23. A brave beginning.

[enough]

24. k&r

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. This is how it builds

watergate, have patience folks,

We want his ass impeached like oh yesterday, but... it takes the proverbial time

[Akoto]

26. How many co-sponsors are needed?

Or is it more of a 'this boat is sailing, hop on if you want to' deal?

[BrainGlutton]

27. What are the odds this will ever make it to a floor vote?

Any guesses?