Help Final Push to Impeachment
It's time! ImpeachForPeace.org is traveling to Washington DC at the end of this month to deliver thousands of Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Memorials to
key representatives in the House!
Support for impeachment is building. As of this writing, 14 reps are supporting Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney (H. Res. 333).
Click here to send in your DIY Memorials before we go.
You may not realize that the only thing standing between where we are today and a nationally televised impeachment investigation is the House Judiciary passing this resolution, which is currently awaiting consideration in their
committee. Luckily, the head of this committee, John Conyers, has said recently that he is supportive and encourages the national impeachment movement.
All we need to push it over the edge is public support, and that's where we come in.
Video of our trip will be posted on our website shortly upon our return. We'll let you know when it's up!
Click here to be a part of this!
Here's a funny video about this unique strategy
Posted by Jodin Morey at July 6, 2007 10:29 AMI am not in the Beltway class but I, too, expect this to be a non-issue in a week, maybe two.
I will admit that I am amazed at those polling numbers in support of impeachment. That said, the Democratic leadership in congress and the would-be leaders running for president are giving those numbers the same respect they gave the polls showing support for the efforts to put time-lines on funding the Iraq war.
A campaign for impeachment requires leadership with focus and drive. Has anyone emerged with either of these qualities? The only Democratic leaders to speak of impeachment have dismissed it.
If there is to be a case for impeachment, it must be stated with accuracy, brevity and clarity. Can anyone draw up the indictment? Perhaps a public campaign driven by the people can get some attention.
Posted by James E. Powell at July 6, 2007 10:35 AMBush has lost the consent of 2/3 of country that he be permitted to continue "his gov'mint".
What would the Founders expect us to do when faced with such a lawbreaking, anti-democratic, out of control executive?
As Phid pointed out the other day, the Founders' argument for why a president would not simply pardon lawbreaking by one of his "creatures" was that (obviously!) Congress would impeach him!
So we know exactly what the Founders would do--and they wouldn't be counting votes in the senate ahead of time. That's what the trial is for.
Make the Repub-constipated senate choose: Bushco or the republic. Where do you stand, "conservative" GOoPers? History demands impeachment, it is what this whole sordid Bush Era has been inexorably building toward.
IMPEACH Cheney and let the chips fall where they may.
I'll re-post this comment, until Bush/Cheney get impeached, nothing will get fixed the way we want it.
And censure of Bush is like Libby's punishment, meaningless except as an excuse to say that the book is closed on his actions.
James, how about this one: Obstruction of Justice, that's the correct theme for getting the troops out of Iraq. Obstruction of Justice.
All roads lead that way, be it Plame or Subpoenas or NSA Wiretaps or Iraq lies and corruption, US Attorneys, there's only one ACTION that gets anything done. Impeachment, followed by, Conviction, followed by, President Pelosi.
Ouch, that'll leave a mark on wingnut drawers everywhere.
If there is to be a case for impeachment, it must be stated with accuracy, brevity and clarity.
[Thinks about the Democratic caucus.]
Good luck with that.
Posted by snark at July 6, 2007 11:03 AMWe're just telling them what they should do, I'm not holding my breath expecting it to happen, not at least without public pressure from, well, the public.
As I've said on my blog, the Dems need to DEMONSTRATE their values by taking action. Issuing subpoenas that get ignored without consequence isn't taking action. Censuring Bush with it's concomit public reprimand is so far removed from an action as to be ludicrous. Letting the Cheney/Bush packed Court System, courtesy of all those Democratic consented advisements, take the lead is not only not an action, but as events continue to DEMONSTRATE, pointless.
SO WHAT ELSE IS THERE?
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, NANCY AND HARRY?
God dammit, what are you going to do?
Posted by Duckman GR at July 6, 2007 11:22 AMDon't get excited--we have 6 years or more of a criminal class in government. Defiance of international and national (US Constitution) law, polls up the wazoo, Bill Moyers on PBS, an administration that says "go fuck yourself" whenever caught breaking the law, so you think anything will change in our government by corporate elite, oligarchy. Still progressive's frantically quote the polls, as if the polls meant anything. I doubt if it's only the so-called beltway class. The test is not what people opine, it's what they do.... and the people don't do diddley squat when it comes to regime change in the US. (But then the choices are between tweedlededum and tweedlededee.)
Posted by degustibus at July 6, 2007 11:47 AMMy cousin who hardly pays attention to any of this said the founders have got to be rolling in their graves.
Posted by Sharon at July 6, 2007 12:15 PMMaybe the Progressive Left can start a viable challenger to run against Nancy Pelosi, whose sole platform would be Impeach Bush/Cheney and out of Iraq now.
And let Speaker Pelosi know that the challenge would be dropped as soon as she got on board.
Posted by Duckman GR at July 6, 2007 12:20 PMARG Now there is a real "unbiased" bunch of folks.
After all this smoke, in 2 years there will still be only 2 impeached presidents in the history of the United States.
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Posted by jj at July 6, 2007 01:16 PMBill Clinton was not removed from office. In fact, he'd still be president today if not for term limits.
Posted by T2 at July 6, 2007 01:49 PMjj is taking the kool-aid via rectal enema now.
Hey Barack...maybe you should pull up that table and put impeachment back on it.
Posted by God Of War at July 6, 2007 02:06 PMBill Clinton was not removed from office. In fact, he'd still be president today if not for term limits.
Posted by T2 at July 6, 2007 01:49 PM
Impeached Yes Removed no, key word here, Impeached ! And, sure he would.
from eagleton.rutgers.edu:
"The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit."
No, Clinton was ~not~ impeached. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 6, 2007 02:40 PMGosh darn it, maybe Pelosi will be forced to put impeachment back on the table where it belonged all along???
Especially, after she returns to Washington DC Monday and is greeted with a deluge of call records from Americans demanding both Bush and Cheney be impeached.
Posted by Christopher at July 6, 2007 02:49 PMAnd what would scout know about honest posters?
Posted by jwrjr at July 6, 2007 03:28 PMClinton was aquitted in the Senate, which meant he could not be removed from office. The point is, amid all this Impeach Bush stuff, is that impeachment does NOT automatically remove a president from office. Unless the votes are there to both impeach him in the House and convict him in the Senate, Bush won't go anywhere, just as with Clinton. Does anyone think 67 votes to convict exist in the Senate?
Posted by T2 at July 6, 2007 03:39 PMT2, perhaps we should follow the vision of the neo-cons for once---let's create OUR own reality, an impeachement and trial of the malevolent Mr 10% Cheney, and see how the "conservative" GOoPers like having to stand on the side of protecting his fatty bacon ass.
What he has advocated and done in the last 6.5 years merits impeachment 10 times over. If the senate GOoPers won't convict, then let that be the judgement of history upon them and their disastrous enablement of this lunatic lawbreaker.
Posted by euzoius at July 6, 2007 03:57 PM"Yet the Beltway class says this will be a non-issue a week from now." -(Steve Soto)
-And the Beltway class is wrong again: It is ALREADY a non issue.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 6, 2007 04:17 PMNo, Clinton was ~not~ impeached. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at July 6, 2007 02:40 PM
Yes Donald; he was.
I'm all for empeachment Euzolus. If it was up to me we'd start yesterday. Put them on the griddle and fry them. But without 67 votes in the Senate, we're stuck. I think that the only way to stop this beast is to take away his money. Let the Senate and House vote to cut Bush's War money first-allocate only enough for withdrawal. If there is enough votes for that, then we can start the trial.
Posted by T2 at July 6, 2007 04:18 PMThe House impeaches.
The Senate convicts or doesn't.
Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted by the Senate.
I'm all for getting rid of Bush and Cheney before January 2009 but the idea that the Democratic House of Representatives is gonna have a meeting of the minds and come to some overwelming agreement on what exactly George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached over and present it in a clear concise and unified way is...well...unrealistic. There might be enough representatives to support the general idea but when it comes down to impeaching on any one specific charge I doubt they'd get a majority on anything.
Posted by snark at July 6, 2007 05:22 PM"According to a new American Research Group poll out today, 46% of voters support impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush. Fifty percent (50%) support impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney." -(Steve Soto)
-The critical thing to understand here is that even if 90% and 96% do the voters supported impeachment against both Bush and Cheney respectively, it would be of no meaning whatsoever and even less efficacy.
It can never be anything but a charade and a silly dog and pony show.
Failure to glean this remedial truth of American politics betrays a fundamental inability to understand the first thing about America itself: There are nor can there be any politics of any consequence in America.
What remains stupefying, to this day, is how the most obvious truths continue to be denied by those Americans who should know better. An astonishing, unabated regard for the sanctity of American institutions, forever forbids them even the smallest inkling of the truth.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 6, 2007 05:42 PMImpeachment? Piffle! I want to see extraordinary rendition to the Hague for the fuckers.
Posted by phidipides at July 6, 2007 06:00 PMThe public support for impeaching Bush and Cheney, unfortunately, means absolutely nothing. When you have people in power who could care less what the public wants, including this Congress, then it is time for their removal by the citizens.
Posted by Judith at July 6, 2007 06:45 PMIt would take just 218 House votes to impeach; the Democrats have 231.
Let me repeat.
It would take just 218 House votes to impeach; the Democrats have 231.
Whether or not the Senate upheld the House vote or not is irrelevant. Bush and Cheney would forever be tied to impeachment.
Just as the GOP House impeached Clinton.
Posted by Christopher at July 6, 2007 07:57 PMIt would take just 218 House votes to impeach; the Democrats have 231.
You would not come anywhere close.
These'd be simple concepts the public & even Congress would understand:
Contempt of Congress (disregarding NSA spying/FISA violations subpoenas) and Obstruction of Justice (rewarding Libby's silence to protect deceitful Administration officials from further Iraq war scrutiny).
Moderate Republicans would find them useful for disassociation from the radical extremist Bush/Cheney disasters. Blue Dogs and Vichy Dems too.
A serious person would have to explain it to them first or they won't get it.
Grounds for impeachment are quite clear, and there is certainly more than one impeachable offense. The Republicans didn't take "impeachment off the table," did they?
Posted by Judith at July 6, 2007 09:34 PM"... Then it is time for their removal by the citizens."
-(Judith)
Yes.
Harshly removed with extreme prejudice, yes. Merely voted out of office, only to be resurrected in yet a more virulent form to savage any form of human decency?
Does a sane state even allow the dreadful, lethal hand of Republicanism to exist? I don't think so.
Yet would this citizenry consider a Parlimentary Democracy with the call for a Constitutional convention to destroy, then recreate the present totally antiquated Constitution? No.
Most Americans don'y even know there is a Constitution.
Americans are simply too politically backward to consider what is necessary. Wealthy liberals, having their economic privileges threatened would be unmasked as fascists, in full collaboration with those red necks they claim to despise.The bottom line for Americans is fascism, never socialism.
Total war, total death, before one shard of the good shall emerge. It is a fait accompli. Horse has left the gate.
But then we all knew that, didn't we?
Posted by Jill Bains at July 6, 2007 10:30 PMBut then we all knew that, didn't we?
Posted by Jill Bains at July 6, 2007 10:30 PM
No we did not-and still don't.
Can anyone figure out what Jill's point is, because I cannot, aside from the put-downs.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 7, 2007 03:14 PMJill's point is: there is no point. Apparently, her comments are one long, boring series of suicide notes.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 7, 2007 04:39 PMWe should also explore the possibility of remanding these clowns to The Hague for trial as war criminals if we get a Democratic President in 2008. I assume we can send Libby there too -- he may have been pardoned for perjury, but not for his part in the conspiracy to get the United States to attack a country that did not attack us.
At Nuremberg we hanged criminals like Nazi Admiral Erich Raeder for his role in planning an aggressive war. As far as I know he was not charged with crimes against humanity and had nothing directly to do with concentration camps.
Posted by Sunlight at July 8, 2007 04:02 PM