Senator Leahy gets an earful about impeachment at home

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23505

Senator Leahy gets an earful about impeachment at home
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-06-10 22:09. Impeachment

By John Lippmann

Last night I was in Barre Vermont at a benefit concert for a great organization called L.A.C.E. www.lacevt.org Anyway, Sen. Leahy was there and when he gave his opening remarks several shouts of impeach bush could be heard. Senator Leahy's only response was that Washington was about to get a lot more interesting...which could mean just about anything...but I think he was talking about the 08 elections. Later in the evening the featured guest of the benefit, Jackson Browne, sang a song called drums of war about the lies and missed opportunities for peace before Iraq which included the line "why is impeachment off the table?" this was met with loud and sustained applause from the audience of which Leahy was a member. Browne also said he had spent the afternoon previous to the benefit talking politics with Leahy and knowing of Browne's political stance, I am sure impeachment came up. Also, people had pretty much free access to Leahy throughout the event. Everyone and particularly Dan and your Vermont friends, this might be a good week to try and reach Sen. Leahy on his impeachment stance and future actions. It seems as if he gets the kind of free pass and general adoration that Kennedy gets in our state but he has just spent a weekend hearing from pro-impeachment VTers and at least one national figure and the pressure is on.

[Alexia Wheaton]

1. Unless you impeach Bush and Cheney AND get a conviction against...

both of them, it is meaningless. If you impeach and convict Bush, you get Cheney as President, not Pelosi.

You should consider that before supporting impeachment.

[yurbud]

3. there's no reason not to impeach both

[DKRC]

5. Which is why we have to impeach Cheney first!

I think it would do a world of good to drag all the filth and lies out into the open while holding him accountable. Start with him and then take them all down. They're all in it up to their eyeballs.

Support McClatchy newspapers in your area so the word gets out to the public who don't get their news online. The groundswell is growing as more people are waking up to what is happening to our country because of these bastards.

[IndyOp]

10. Even if both Bush & Cheney are impeached and convicted -

one or the other will appoint a new Vice President before Pelosi can slide into office. So we aren't going to get Pelosi in the White House - that can't be our goal.

The purpose of impeachment at this point is to demand that no one be allowed to be "above the law" -- Ford did this nation a great disservice when he pardoned Nixon and Clinton did the nation a great disservice when he pardoned G.H.W. Bush.

It is time to hold one of these crooks accountable for using the Constitution as toilet paper!

:grr:

[Edweird]

17. What Indy said. It's not about Pelosi. It's about justice.

Doing the right thing is the best long term strategy.

[femrap]

37. Exactly....No one is above the law.

They must be impeached. Let the a**hole name a new VP (another Gerald Ford) who takes over. But we have to make this right...we must save our Constitutional and our Republic.

[PBass]

18. It's not about deposing the president, it's about accountability.

The people who say "Yeah but then we'll be stuck with Cheney!" miss the point IMO.

There MUST be accountability so that future presidents do not conduct themselves as arrogantly as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales have done. I don't care WHO the future president is... I would be outraged if it was President Gore, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Kucinich or whoever you can name, acting as lawless and arrogant as this administration has.

If we do nothing, we risk repeating this "President-runs-amok" nightmare scenario again.

[Beausoleil]

23. But any new VP appointed

must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. Little minor detail of the 25th Amendment. So both can be impeached and neither will have final say on who would be confirmed. If both are convicted, Speaker is in.

[tomp]

25. first 3 sentences correct. last one NOT.

logic has failed you. or, rather, you have failed logic.

[Beausoleil]

28. How?

If POTUS and VP are impeached and convicted and no replacement VP has been confirmed, who becomes POTUS? I think you need to re-read my post.

[tomp]

39. you assume potus and vpotus would ever be impeached...

...simultaneously. that's never going to happen. the vice president will be replaced before the next trial begins. now, if they both died or resigned simultaneously, then the speaker would be in.

[Beausoleil]

40. Well that's not faulty logic on my part,

you're assuming that both can't be impeached simultaneously. I assume they can, which was the basis of my premise. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it. Just because you say it's never going to happen, doesn't mean it can't happen.

The post I originally responded to started "Even if both Bush & Cheney are impeached and convicted -". I was just making the point that any new VP appointment must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. And there's nothing in the Constitution saying that after the VP is impeached and removed from office, the President cannot also be impeached and convicted before he named a new VP.

[tomp]

42. i get your point about the vp appointment ...

...being subject to congressional approval. it's an important point for all to remember.

maybe i was wrong to use the term logic. perhaps i should have used the word reason. all things considered the scenario you put forward for president pelosi is unlikely in the extreme. whenever i see anyone suggesting that it could happen i have to call in a reality check. it's not going to happen. the commitment of any amount of energy, mental or otherwise, to the goal of president pelosi via impeachment of bush/cheney is a waste of resources and to promote it is misleading at best. even president kucinich via electoral process, as long a shot as that is, is a much better bet.

all that being said, i want to be clear that i am totally supportive of impeachment of bush and cheney. i just don't expect to get president pelosi out ot it. impeachment and full prosecution of bush/cehney, etc., is just the first step in a very long process of establishing (and note that i don't say re-establishing) democracy in the u.s., the completion of which is another very long shot.

[WhiteTara]

11. you don't think Heartless is vunerable?

:shrug:

[hootinholler]

13. Bullshit.

It is not meaningless if there's no conviction. Our allies in Europe are watching. We were abusing NATO treaties to run black prisons. Impeachment must proceed for at least 2 reasons:

1. Demonstrate that our schizophrenic policies can be opposed by the people.

2. To find out who is with us and who is against us.

-Hoot

[Alexia Wheaton]

38. No reason to swear. I am just pointing out that you...

need a conviction if you want it to stick. If you impeach them and they are aquitted, that would show them to be innocent. Do you want that on the record? Bush and Cheney, innocent? :shrug:

[Senator]

20. Conviction is Virtually Irrelevant

Gaining conviction is virtually irrelevant. If charges are warranted (and they are) they must be lodged. Failure to do so is complicity with and approval of the unlawful acts. In this case, that means torture and war crimes. Without impeachment we formally become (remain) a War Criminal Nation.

It really is just that simple. We (the U.S.) don't get to rewrite those rules. And failure by gov't officials (the Dem majority in Congress) to report and ACT to stop ongoing war crimes is a war crime in itself. We can -- and must try to -- convict on torture/war crimes.

Failure to impeach is the worst "possible result."

And removal is not out of the question. The Senate has already voted 90-9 in support of the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment (sadly negated, via "rule by signing statement"). Beyond that, simple morality/decency demand that you do the right thing without regard to personal/political gain or cost -- and all rationalizations for inaction are some form of that.

And even by a craven political/electoral yardstick, the DC Dems ongoing failure to even stand and object formally (actually DO something), solidifies the perception of Dems as the party of weakness, fecklessness, and dithering. They will remain a non-alternative to meet the fears that will continue to be mongerred full tilt by the neofascists.

Only Impeachment ... is a substantive act.

It IS our positive agenda. Literally a panacea for the Dem Party.

It is also our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[bigtree]

33. We don't need an impeachment to have charges brought

In fact, inviting Senators and representatives to weigh in with their political judgments in an impeachment hearing, where levers like the admission of evidence can be voted on, will almost certainly pervert and obscure any measure of due process which would characterize any real accountability for criminal behavior.

[lyonn]

43. "They don't get to re-write the rules" good observation

The only thing that can be added is the lies blurted out on Sunday programs by this admin. that we were in imminent danger of being attacked by Saddam or anyone he could give his deadly nukes to. Pulling inspectors out after several months of inspections that produced NO evidence to start the attack.

[Toots]

22. Nothing ventured , nothing gained..

:shrug: You can always come up with reasons not to do something...

[xchrom]

2. it's all about being a muscular democrat.

believe in the things democrats stand for -- and go after thugs who have robbed the country of it's honour, it's wealth{both body and monetary}, it's decency, and it's sense that the bill of rights means something.

impeachment should NOT be off the table -- because there is a host of folks waiting in the wings to do what bushco has done and worse.

impeachment should not be off the table because bushco has committed real impeaachable offenses.

be authentic, be a party of the left -- be democrats.

[yurbud]

4. yep, and without impeachment, the next bunch of thugs will be in power that much sooner

Bush's presidency will be rehabilitated or swept under the rug in an election cycle or two and the right will be back, mean, smarter, and quicker to consolidate power by gutting the constitution.

[DKRC]

6. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Vidar]

7. Always like to hear these stories. Thanks for posting it.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Let's hope he gets the message

And by "getting the message", I mean, realizing that doing nothing is soon going to be more politically dangerous than doing something.

Start off with something easy.

Cheney.

[lonestarnot]

9. I drink to that!

:toast:

[Canuckistanian]

12. Cheers!

:toast:

[eridani]

14. Remember that politicians will NOT lead on this

They aren't going to act unless there is enough popular pressure.

[EFerrari]

15. Exactly. I admit that I have been discouraged here at home

and not very active, only recharging, in the last few weeks.

But, NANCY: YOUR DISTRICT WANTS YOU TO IMPEACH THESE CRIMINALS, NOT CODDLE THEM. :nuke:

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. He needs to give Reid and Pelosi a full, unfettered report!

It needs to start in the House and move forward to the Senate. And ALL members of Congress need to hear it loud and clear!

[Senator]

19. The All Get An Earful At Home

The trouble is the headful of bogus beltway ballyhoo they get the rest of the time.

And if anyone sends a message to Senator Lamey, please remind him that our Constitutional rights like Habeas Corpus do not need "restoration." They need to be defended by impeaching, prosecuting, and punishing those who would even suggest violating them.

Perhaps he knows some people who took an oath to do that sort of thing.

====

[radfringe]

21. let's clarify the House Speaker taking over thing

It's my understanding that a House Speaker moving into the oval office would occur if BOTH the president and vice-president were incapacitate at the same time.

Should impeachment of both BUSH and CHENEY occur at the same time, most likely the votes would be handled individually - meaning one or the other would be impeached/convicted and then the other

bush or cheney (which ever one remains standing for the moment) would then nominate a VP - THAT NOMINEE WOULD THEN NEED THE CONFIRMATION OF CONGRESS.

History lesson - Nixon-Agnew

Agnew resigned, Nixon met with congress critters and Ford was nominated as an acceptable replacement. Ford was confirmed and became VP.

The same process happened when Ford moved into the oval office after Nixon resigned. Rockefeller was nominated by Ford and confirmed by congress.

[OzarkDem]

26. Good point

It's not likely Bush would be impeached or resign, but Cheney may be at risk. Though it may not accomplish a great deal in the short term, it would restore faith in our government and put the brakes on some of their illegal activities.

[Discord]

24. I have written Sanders and Leahy

each on two occasions demanding impeachment. Both times was met with a response simply stating that there was "more important issues to deal with in Washington."

I simply can't express my outrage, that here in Vermont, after many local impeachment resolutions have been passed throughout the state... that our representitives still will not budge on thier stance.

Another sad lesson to We the People, that our representitve government simply does not represent us anymore. Impeachment is overwhelmingly supported in Vermont, and it is thier duty to reflect and persue the will of thier constituents.

[bigtree]

27. yeah, let's knock on one our most active opponents of the administration

as if he alone had the power to move an impeachment through this Congress and make it produce all of the results which have been heaped behind the prospect.

Forget governing, forget committee investigations, let's just adopt the Impeachment panacea and all of the opposition and obstruction will just fall away . . . not. What a crock to act as if all we have to do is initiate impeachment proceedings with charges produced in some op-ed, or journal and expect the opposition to just melt away and the public to throw roses at our feet. Fantasy.

[Senator]

29. It is they who are knocking us...

...with the pretense that their "governing" or investigations can produce any tangible result in the face of "Rule By Signing Statement."

And with their rationalizations that there is something "more important" than objecting to torture and war crimes.

They are living the fantasy -- not us.

--

[bigtree]

30. then let's get behind Conyer's assault on the signing statements

but all of the histrionics that we should move to impeachment because we can't govern ignores the fact that that process, itself, depends on the ability of our legislators to govern. It's not like impeachment is going to be automatically devoid of the political obstruction and obstinacy which is fouling up the legislative process.

Instead of throwing down and resigning ourselves to a process which invites partisanship and polarity, we should continue to use every lever of our democracy to achieve our goals. If that process leads us to an impeachment, so be it. But, we won't succeed if that effort is seen as having been initiated by one party or the other. There simply isn't any substitute in our political system for the hard work of deliberations and compromise which has been purposefully built into the system. Congress can either argue in perpetuity, or they can compromise. There really are no overt provisions in our democracy that would allow dictating, partisan actions to long prevail. It make no sense at all to drive our party into that dubious corner at this point.

[Senator]

31. What "assault" ?!?

What is being DONE beyond talk-talk and tsk-tsk? Those are the real histrionics.

Another piece of legislation meant to "restore" one of the rights or legal restrictions the neofascists continue to chuckle at?

Our party is already in a "dubious corner" of a DemocRat's Maze.

Only Impeachment ... is The Cheese.

--

[bigtree]

32. what kind of 'Senator' would consider the workings of our democracy

with such disregard for due process?

I'm not even going to begin to try and reconcile whatever cynicism you have for our democratic process with the extensive efforts so far of our legislators working within the law to hold the administration accountable.

Your 'impeachment' has no guaranteed outcome. None of what you say you want out of it is at all assured. But, you'll still lambaste our legislators for their ineffectiveness in the face of republican obstruction. When would you accept accountability for the effects of your impeachment?

Oh, never mind . . . there really is no accountability when throwing stones from the outside, is there?

[Senator]

34. The kind that took an oath to defend the Constitution

Impeachment is the "due process."

And it is the demand for "guaranteed outcome" that is the cynical postition.

I recognize that we "outsiders" are awfully inconvenient.

But this is the way "our democracy" works.

--

[bigtree]

35. the other legislative efforts short of impeachment are also 'due process'

proscribed by the Constitution as necessary and essential in their responsibilities of 'checks and balances'.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to insist that there is some anticipated outcome of a successful prosecution before undertaking the extraordinary remedy of impeachment.

[Senator]

36. More like "duped process"

As they all lead to the same "Rule By Signing Statement" result.

And YES, it is "unreasonable ... to insist that there is some anticipated outcome of a successful prosecution." It might be reasonable if you were to describe the mechanism by which this might (even remotely) occur. But not in a vacuum.

Who do you expect to engage in the prosecution? On what charges? In what time frame?

Hoping is not reasoning.

--

[Discord]

41. seems to me...

... someone hasn't been paying much attention if you still believe for one iota of a second that any of our "reasonable" steps to hold accountability will succeed. They have been trying, and for what? Lost emails? "No Confindence" votes? Continued obstructions? Oppressive silencing? We have nearly exhausted our reasonable means and have yielded... Scooter Libby. Yay, we got a fall guy the Administration has already insuated will be given a Presidential pardon, if he even ends up serving his sentance at all. We are still stifled by a Hilton watch and essentially a media blackout, failing to accurately and accountably inform the public. Many media stations are still embroilled in an active campaign to continue disinformation without regulation or oversight. Accountability??? Not under this Administration.

Did you happen to notice the Presidential Directive should another major hurricane hit? Or a big earthquake in the Western states? It doesn't even require an act of aggression or terrorism to institute this new directive. Then what? Theres not even the illusion of oversight, or commitees, or accountability if that happens. If that were to happen, then the President and his Administration would have unquestionable power. With suspended elections and the usurping of Congress, the only road that would be left to We the People to get this corrupt Administration out of government would be a full scale revolution. You think that is a better course than Impeachement? Its definately a distict possability since the laws have already been written in to allow such a scenario to take place.

Since this Administration continues its policy of stonewalling and secrecy, the only measure available to us is to engage in impeachment hearings. Force them to show thier hand under penalty of law. Use the same rule of law that they are circumventing at every turn, to bring thier crimes to light. Force the media into coverage of the Presidents and Vice Presidents actions, and allow the population to finally see whats going on in Washington, with a big bright spotlight on them all.

At this point in time, I believe that impeachment is not only justified, but it is necessary to protect the integrity of this nation, in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world around us.