30 US Reps for Bush Impeachment Inquiry
1. APN Interviews Conyers, Swanson, and Goodman
By Matthew Cardinale, Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (March 10, 2006)
(APN) ATLANTA – 30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,†US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the US, and felon voting rights.
“We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we’re supporting Conyers’s resolution,†Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,†Goodman said.
Meanwhile, at least eight (8) US cities, including Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California; and Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, and Putney, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment.
The recent city resolutions in Vermont have directly led to US Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) having signed H. Res 635 on March 09, 2006, David Swanson, 36, Washington DC Director of ImpeachPAC, asserted in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.
“One of the big stories here is the town resolutions helped someone sign on the resolution that could move us in the direction of impeachment. Even though getting your city or town to pass a resolution doesn’t legally force the house to impeach, it can compel your congress member to get on board,†Swanson said.
Sanders’s Office did not provide a statement about his co-sponsoring H. Res 635, prior to deadline, and referred this writer to an official statement on Sanders’s website.
“I can very well understand why the citizens of Newfane, Putney, Dummerston, Marlboro, and Brookfield voted yesterday to support the impeachment of President Bush and ask me, as Vermont’s Congressman, to introduce those articles. It is my view that President Bush’s Administration has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well have been illegal,†Sanders said. Sanders, the only Independent, or non-Democrat, currently co-sponsoring H. Res 635, is current for US Senate to replace retiring US Senator Jim Jefforts (I-VT).
However, Sanders stopped short of saying he would introduce outright articles of impeachment, saying citizens should focus on getting Republicans out of power in the 2006 election if they want to end Bush’s disastrousness. Signing H. Res 635 indicates Sanders’s support for a more exploratory investigation.
Mr. Swanson, along with Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, have been perhaps the most prominent citizen activists on this issue. ImpeachPAC was featured in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. “Bob has been pushing for impeachment since Gore won the election. This is Bob’s moment now after five years,†Swanson said.
US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) was the other latest member of US Congress to sign on to the bill. Capuano’s Office did not immediately return calls from Atlanta Progressive News.
Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).
The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
“I have a Citizen Co-sponsorship page on my website, http://johnconyers.com , where over 42,000 people have added their names to the 30 Members of Congress calling for the creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable offenses. My website also has a form for people to write a letter-to-the-editor for their local newspaper. It is grassroots activity like this, and the efforts of thousands of others, that has led to greater awareness of and support for my resolution,†Rep. Conyers told Atlanta Progressive News.
“What a lot of activists group want is the next step, which is Articles of Impeachment. You don’t have to pass this type of bill first. I think there’s a fair chance that if the list of co-sponsors grows dramatically, Conyers and others will take that next step of introducing articles of impeachment,†Swanson said.
At least two members of Congress are prepared to sign such a bill if it were to be introduced, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. One of them is US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), whose office clarified earlier Associated Press reports, by saying Lewis would indeed sign such a bill, assuming that any bill of impeachment would of course be introduced as a result of a thorough process, such as one including the investigation called for in H. Res 635.
Shocking allegations appeared in The Baltimore Chronicle today. Dave Lindorff writes that he and Barbara Olshansky (also an attorney at CCR) will reveal in an upcoming book that “members of Congress–even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)–have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House.â€
Conyers’s bill was initially referred to the US House Rules Committee, which has not taken action. None of the US House Democrats on the Rules Committee have signed on as co-sponsors. The Ranking Democrat on the Committee is US Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Democratic members of the Committee are Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), and James McGovern (D-MA). Republicans currently outnumber Democrats on the committee by about a two-to-one ratio.
The US House Rules Committee would need to take action on H. Res 635 because it calls for the creation of a Select Committee, in other words the creation of a new committee that is not a standing committee, Jonathan Godfrey, Communications Director for US Rep. Conyers, told Atlanta Progressive News. Such a Committee would need to be staffed, Godfrey noted.
If the Democratic Party is able to retake the US House of Representatives, Rep. Conyers would become Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, whereas he is currently the Ranking Democrat on the Committee. The Judiciary Committee would oversee any actual impeachment investigation.
If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible that a new bill could include new language regarding Bush's approval of illegal NSA domestic wiretapping.
For now, however, sources in Washington DC tell Atlanta Progressive News that H. Res 635 is a venue for coalition among members of Congress who are willing to consider impeachment for a variety of reasons.
Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue to be a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.
In other words, why introduce separate legislation to address a single issue when momentum has been built with H. Res 635?
The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush's impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.
US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 last month, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren's Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.
H. Res 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
You know you're REALLY the President when someone tries to impeach you.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Quote:
“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,†Goodman said.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Finally.
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am Posts: 9080 Location: Londres
Green Habit wrote:
Quote:
“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq; the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture... All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,†Goodman said.
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 2783 Location: Boston, MA
Are these the same people who tried to fight the official results from the 2000 Presidential Election? I jsut remember the scene from Farenheit 9/11 when one by one a Rep. came up and not one Senator would stand with them.
It's all about political spin. Nothing says "extreme left wing" like this, even if it's probably justified. It will be hard to get those on the fence votes will an act like this.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Maybe this can be added to the long list of illegal acts if found to be true.
Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass? Raw Story | March 16 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, ? 7.
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
There's also talk of censure on the table, possibly a little more feasible.
Quote:
No. 2 Senate Democrat airs Bush censure issue 3/20/2006
Associated Press With his censure resolution, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is in the forefront of criticism of President Bush over Iraq.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A top Senate Democrat said Sunday that President Bush should be held responsible if he violated the law in authorizing the domestic spying program. But Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said it is too early to tell whether censure or impeachment of Bush would be appropriate.
"I can't rule anything out until the investigation is complete. I don't want to prejudge it," said Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "But if this president or any president violates the law, he has to be held accountable."
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., last week introduced censure legislation, saying Bush violated the law in not fully informing Congress or getting approval from a secretive court to conduct the warrantless eavesdropping program. A censure resolution, if adopted, would amount to Congress scolding the president.
Few Democrats have embraced Feingold's proposal, while some Republicans have sought to cast the move as a shameless political ploy over a vital national security issue. Feingold is considered a presidential contender for 2008.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
MONTPELIER, Vt. - Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for
President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.
The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.
The state Democratic committee is scheduled to decide the issue in a special meeting April 8.
The resolutions accuse the Bush administration of lying about the case for war in
Iraq and illegally engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.
They rely on "Jefferson's Manual," which says impeachment proceedings can begin "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state."
Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington said lawmakers should stay focused on state issues and suggested Bush critics work to elect a different Congress in November "that could investigate the actions of the president and change the direction of the country."
James Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said presidents should not be impeached "because we disagree with them," adding that evidence for impeachment was drawn from "left-wing blogs and conspiracy theories."
A message seeking comment from the White House press office was not immediately returned.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Would Dick Cheney be president if Bush was impeached?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
