FOX 'News': 'Rep. Kucinich Gets His Day to Air Impeachment Article'

[Breeze54]

Rep. Kucinich Gets His Day to Air Impeachment Article

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391121,00.html

Friday, July 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich's quest to impeach President Bush is getting an official airing in the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.

The Ohio congressman's single impeachment article is not expected to move forward, but critics of the Bush administration were taking the opportunity in a House Judiciary Committee hearing to push for removing the president from office.

The hearing began shortly after 10 a.m. ET, and it didn't take long for the call to impeach Bush to bring an applause line, if not to wade through political statements on each side of the aisle.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said the administration has committed "serious abuses, that if proven, would certainly constitute high crimes." Therefore, "The most appropriate response to this unprecedented behavior is to hold hearings for impeachment."

The line drew hoots of approval from some members of the audience, which drew a warning to the audience from Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

"Let's restrain ourselves, please," Conyers said.

Despite several mentions early of the "I" word, Conyers explained to the audience it was not, technically, an impeachment hearing "to the regret of many." He said the House would have to vote for an impeachment inquiry to begin, a test not met by the July 15 vote to send Kucinich's

Just after he spoke, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., made her : "It is my judgment that President Bush is the worst president that our country has suffered."

The top-ranked Republican on the committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, dismissed the hearing as a waste of time.

Likening the hearing to "an anger management class," Smith said, "Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment. ... That's because there is no evidence to support impeachment.

He said the partisan tone of the hearing was probably one of the reasons congressional approval ratings are at historic lows, recently below 10 percent. "That makes President Bush's approval rating of 32 percent look pretty good," Smith said.

Cracking a joke at his Democratic colleagues' expense, Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., belittled the hearing, saying, "Maybe what we're here for is impeachment light' " -- a "never, never land" where Democrats lay out their accusations, but don't follow up on impeachment.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., tried to argue against the point of the hearing on a legal point.

"The framers (of the Constitution) did not intend impeachment as a political device," Pence said, adding that he believed the president has "consistently put the American people's need before his own."

Roughly 45 minutes into the hearing, the committee had not gotten to the witness list.

But the fact that the hearing is taking place is almost as improbable as its intended outcome — the ouster of the president.

Under the Constitution, impeachment powers lie in the House. But despite deep divisions between the House Democratic Caucus and White House on a broad swath of issues — the Iraq war, the economy, energy, climate change, to name a few — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointedly said impeachment is off the table.

The hearing Friday, titled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," followed the July 15 vote to send Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the panel. While the hearing isn't explicitly about impeachment, that doesn't mean a few House members can't talk openly about the possibility.

Kucinich, who also has attempted to impeach Vice President Cheney, will kick off the witness panel that is loaded with people from the foundations of the anti-Bush movement.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., for instance, earlier this month repeated his long-held belief that the administration invaded Iraq solely to secure oil and benefit oil companies.

"That is why this administration let Usama bin Laden go because they wanted to justify attacking Iraq," Hinchey said, according to The (Kingston, N.Y.) Daily Freeman.

Another witness scheduled for Friday, Reagan administration lawyer turned Bush-basher Bruce Fein, met with reporters alongside antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Thursday, ahead of the hearing. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fein accused Bush of making a power-grab on the presidency, but also took on Democrats for letting him do it.

"It doesn't matter if the country goes to hell in a hand basket as long as Democrats are steering the Titanic when it sinks," Fein said according to the paper.

The list also includes Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., an Iraq war critic; Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.; former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, D-N.Y.; former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., now the Libertarian Paty presidential candidate; Ross "Rocky" Anderson, founder of High Roads for Human Rights and former mayor of Salt Lake City.

The other witnesses are: Stephen Presser, of the Northwestern University School of Law; Vincent Bugliosi, former L.A. County prosecutor; Jeremy Rabkin, George Mason University School of Law; Elliot Adams, board president of Veterans for Peace; and Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Ugh... now I need a shower!!! :puke:

[Breeze54]

1. ......

:kick:

[slipslidingaway]

2. He's right...

all talk and no action.


'...Cracking a joke at his Democratic colleagues' expense, Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., belittled the hearing, saying, "Maybe what we're here for is impeachment light' " -- a "never, never land" where Democrats lay out their accusations, but don't follow up on impeachment..."


A shower or try one of these...

http://www.bermuda4u.com/Essential/bermuda_rum_swizzle.html

[Breeze54]

3. You mean Pelosi? I agree!

At least now it's officially on the record and it may be taken up again in the 111th Congress.

You never know. Things have a way of changing.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Well actually I did mean Lungren, for months and years we have

heard that Bush has ignored laws etc.

But all the Dems do is talk :(

[Breeze54]

8. Look, I want impeachment too but we don't have the votes to make it happen yet.

We only have 51 in the Senate and we would need 60 and the Congress is also divided, despite the majority we hold. There are a lot of DINO's and others that aren't on board yet but you should, maybe, look to the one's that ARE trying to make it happen!?! Nobody ever said government was easy.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Well I'd be happier if less of our party did not give a wink and

a nod that they would not be held accountable, start to talk about the options and at least try to gain support. It is late in the game at this point, but that does not excuse their past behavior.

:(


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13000.htm

"...Dori Smith: You wrote your draft impeachment resolution against President Bush back in January of 2003 and in the time since we have learned a lot more about pre-war intelligence manipulation and the various kinds of disinformation provided to the American people about Iraq. Just talk about the ongoing effort to impeach since your resolution in 2003. Do you think enough is known for impeachment to proceed and can we get there?

Francis A. Boyle: Yes, I think those of us in the peace movement in the fall of 2002 were publicly stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was just a bald faced lie and propaganda to generate momentum towards war. And I think we have now been proven to be correct. Where the impeachment campaign stands now; I have to review just a little bit of history.

On 13 March 2003, that is just before the outbreak of the war against Iraq, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, convened an emergency meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to put in emergency bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and at that time Ashcroft, to head off the impending war...


The main objection was political expedience and in particular John Podesta was there. He had been Clinton’s White House chief of staff. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and that as far as the DNC was concerned it was going to hurt their ability to get whoever their candidate was going to be in 2004 elected President if we put in these bills of impeachment. I found that argument completely disingenuous when the Democrats had no idea who their candidate was going to be in 2004 as of March 2003. We had no idea..."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6406062#6406270

A party at risk - A country at risk

A few snips from this post of last year by DU'er welshTerrier2 that are relevant to the current FISA legislation and what our party should have done.

The particular issue does not matter, how you go about gaining support for an issue matters greatly.


"Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process....

Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't...

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message..."

[MotorCityMan]

4. What planet are these people from?

"The framers (of the Constitution) did not intend impeachment as a political device," Pence said, adding that he believed the president has "consistently put the American people's need before his own."

First of all, the rule of the law was all important during the Clinton impeachment, and god forbid anyone called that a "political device".

Secondly, * doesn't give a rat's ass for anyone but himself and his base, the haves and the have mores.

[Breeze54]

7. That point was argued back and forth all day.

Spot on!!

Pence is brain dead.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Also flipping through the cable channels and Fox did a short

segment on the hearings today, nothing great but at least they mentioned it.

[Breeze54]

9. Well, that's something... I'm watching the broadcast news now and

waiting to see if they'll talk about it. I'm on NBC right now.

My remote broke, so I can't check all the channels from where I sit. ;)

Old tv, rabbit ears... you get the picture! :P

[slipslidingaway]

11. Of course they could have covered it better, anything from where

you sit.

:)