"The impeachment proposals aren't going anywhere"

[stephinrome]

Last week, three members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote a powerful op-ed calling for impeachment hearings of Vice President Dick Cheney and submitted it to some of the most influential newspapers in the U.S., including the New York Times and the Washington Post. Don’t bother looking through your piled up newspapers, for this op-ed was not seen as fit to print.

After being rejected by the press, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) made their appeal via the Internet. With not so much as a mention in the mainstream press, nearly 100,000 signatures in favor of impeachment hearings have been collected in a matter of a few days.

While desperately searching for any hint of this incredible groundswell in the impeachment movement reported in the mainstream news, I came across the following response from Foon Rhee, Deputy National Political Editor of the Boston Globe, during his weekly “politics chat” on December 18:

guest: How come the wexler and kucinich proposals to Impeach Cheney (and I think Bush too) never go anywhere? How many laws do you have break?

Foon_Rhee: Sorry about that intermission. Computer problems.

Foon_Rhee: Anyway, the impeachment proposals aren't going anywhere because there's not enough support in Congress. Whether laws were actually broken is debatable. And while impeachment was countenanced in our Constitution, politicians are loath to head down that road unless they believe it's absolutely necessary. There was quite a bit of criticism over the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton over the lying in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair, with critics saying it didn't rise to the level of wrongdoing the founding fathers thought warranted impeachment.

Well, in fact, there is support for it in Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution for the impeachment of Cheney and that bill has 24 sponsors. And now we’ve got three members of the Judiciary, the very committee responsible for impeachment proceedings, jumping through hoops in order to get the word out on the case for hearings.

As regards “whether laws were actually broken,” the whole idea of impeachment hearings is, in fact, to determine whether laws have been broken or whether high crimes and misdemeanors, i.e. abuses of power, have been committed. So if it is “debatable,” then by all means, let the hearings begin!

After that Rhee completely lost me. With good reason there was much criticism over the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, as they were an exercise in frivolity. What that has to do with the very serious case against Dick Cheney, however, is beyond me. The articles of impeachment against Cheney include “purposely manipulating the intelligence process to deceive the people of the U.S. and Congress” regarding the threat posed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which led to a war and occupation responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Cheney is also charged with having “openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States,” which was confirmed by the recent NIE report.

Did Foon Rhee really intend to compare the two cases? Is what Wexler referred to in the op-ed as “the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton” now supposed to seriously keep members of the House of Representatives from considering impeachment against Cheney?

Interestingly enough, just before his response above, Rhee was accused of dancing around questions by another chat participant:

Guest: just a comment, love these live chats, but I feel you dance around questions without giving a solid answer.

Foon_Rhee: Well, I do my best. One reminder: While, like everyone I have my own personal views on issues, in my line of work, fairness is paramount. So I’m not going to say anything that would damage my objectivity and credibility.

Too late. And two important questions still remain: how many laws do they have to break and what will it take to make the news?

Stephanie Westbrook

If you haven’t already, sign the petition calling for impeachment hearings:
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

Then take a moment to send a message to Foon Rhee with your thoughts on the urgency of impeachment hearings and the media’s failure to report on it.
Foon Rhee
[e-mail]
[phone]

[KharmaTrain]

1. Whether laws were actually broken is debatable

This really sums up where things are now. While we have smoke, we have no real smoking guns. Evidence remains behind stonewalls, testimony isn't being compelled and every week another scandal breaks that seems to take the air out of the previous one. The list of crimes pile up, yet none have been pressed beyond the Libby case...and none initiated by the legislative. "No Harm No Foul". Sure, there's a lot of pieces that show criminality, there's not a legal "underpinning" that makes impeachment possible. Right now they're allegations, the Nixon and Clinton impeachments were based on criminal investigations, verdicts and, in Clinton's case, the infamous "referral"...supposed legal evidence of crimes that were the basis of the articles. Those basics still aren't there...and won't be as long as this regime "plays out the clock" and Congress avoids confronting for whatever boogie man they choose to use as an excuse.

In another thread, I called for the naming of an Independent Consul...someone who could operate outside the political circus of the House, to push the investigations into the crimes committed by this regime. This is where the legality is defined...where we find not only if laws were broken, but who broke them and with that, indictments and impeachment can follow.

Cheers...

[stephinrome]

2. everything you say makes me think...

...we need hearings now!

[AndyTiedye]

3. Well There Might Be A FEW Laws They Haven't Broken Yet