Impeachment On The Table -- But Not Up For Vote

The Nation:

Impeachment is on the table.

But Congress is not allowed to bite.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on one of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the chamber have signaled that they do not want the committee -- let alone the full House -- to take a vote on impeachment.

How's that?

The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the president's abuses of power -- perhaps as soon as next week. Expert witnesses will be called. Kucinich says that a foreign official -- who he has not named -- is willing to testify regarding presidential wrongdoing. And Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, the veteran Michigan Democrat who actually believes in presidential accountability but has had a hard time getting other top Democrats to embrace that belief, suggests that the hearing will review evidence of "all the (Bush administration actions) that constitute an imperial presidency."

But, when all is said and done, the committee is only supposed to "accumulate" the evidence of imperial over-reach, not to act upon it.

Read the whole story: The Nation

Comments

[Hotfixer]

It's ridiculous that the democrats leadership is too timid to consider impeaching a president who it clearly nothing short of criminal. Dennis Kucinich is brave to stand against all of the opposition. For those of you who don't know. (Which is sure to be very few people on Huffington Post) Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment into The House of Representatives to be voted on but was more or less ignored. Here's a link to a post about Kucinich, a list of the articles, and a petition to have his articles heard: http://hotfixamerica.com/?p=25

[OgreDaddy]

Does anyone know how the law addresses impeachment of the Vice President?

Cheney is Bush's check mate because no one on earth would want Darth Cheney in the position
of acting president if Bush steps down.

[MissingAmerica]

Nixon stepped down rather than face impeachment for the Watergate affair. The "I" word was thrown all over the place when the GOP threatened to impeach Clinton for extramarital affairs, not an impeachable offense. Now we have a President who has thumbed his nose at Congress, relieved himself on the Constitution, called the American people Fascists, and lied to wage his own war against a foreign nation that was no threat. We were not an aggressor nation, we did not torture, we did not occupy foreign countries -- our Constitution says it. So what the Hell? We all want these men to pay for their high crimes. If we leave it up to Congress, it won't happen. On the bright side, when they leave the White House, we can do the job ourselves!

[airduds]

Read your history. President Clinton WAS impeached.

The charges were not extramarital affairs. They were for perjury and obstruction of justice.

[airduds]

Bill Clinton WAS impeached.

The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice. He was not charged with having an extramarital affair.

[fairwitness]

Nancy "Impeachme­nt-is-off-­the-table" Pelosi and John "If-only they'd-let-me" Conyers:

Quit f--king talking about it and DO IT. This country is going rapidly down the tubes because no one believes in it anymore. Holding the Bushian criminals accountable is critical to the restoration of any kind of public spirit We ar ebeaten down and pissed.

[super]

No surprise here. Just another opportunity for more empty posturing. You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie (er, I mean, Nancy)!

[RTIII]

"Why is this happening NOW?" you might ask.

My theory is that she's starting to get worried about losing her seat.

You see, early this week her competition in this falls election reported roughly a quarter of a million in campaign donations.

The next morning, Nancy announced that she was directing the Judiciary Committee to do something.

Then, a day later, her competition placed a public signature tally with regard to getting on the ballot making it clear that with the current pace of signature collection, Cindy Sheehan WILL be on the ballot in November.

The next day, Nancy makes the move reported here.

I think this means Nancy now realizes she has a real race on her hands. With Congress' approval at reportedly 9%, she has to know that a major reason is her protection of Junior. So...

If Cindy can build up a large enough war chest, maybe Nancy will be forced to Impeach.

Well, it's worth a try anyway - either way it goes, we REALLY want Nancy out. So, please help us. Please donate generously at CindyForCongress.org

Thanks.
.

[lisakaz2]

Nancy,

You are being a Booo$hie enabler. We are sick of it. Vincent Bugliosi could make a credible case for impeachment. Who do you work for anyway?

[mscriblerus]

The republicans in the HJC have been not so subtly suggesting Pelosi complicity, via briefing, in the enactment of such enhanced interrogation techniques as waterboarding. I hope she's not just trying to hide her prior knowledge. In any event, if she needs to fall on her sword for us the clear this up, then someone needs to help her and give a good strong push. Do your job or quit Nancy.

[RTIII]

I doubt your scenario is the cause of her not moving forward because the briefings are useless and should be ended in their present form. As they are now, she is required to not talk about them at all. So she can't actually use anything she learns from them. Check it out - it's obscene. That is, this aspect of oversight is worse than as useful as tits on a bull - it gives the appearance of oversight but the overseer can do NOTHING, regardless of what they "saw."

I figure they got some dirt on her, probably very serious dirt... You know, blackmail.
.

[Chillinout]

All those Congressional Democrats without a spine, (Pelosi, Reid, etc. etc.), need to be replaced with more "progressive" Democrats instead of these Repub-lites. Two years the Dems have had to hold this administration accountable for its high crimes and misdemeanors, and yet not action was ever taken in a serious way in Congress, especially in the Senate.

[RTIII]

...Or even replaced by Independents in some cases.

ALL reps are up every two years...

Note that the primaries are over.

Your incumbent Dem is all you'll get on the ballot other than an R and some possible Is. Where you have a viable independent, if your D rep is one of the 105 traitors that voted for FISA, please vote for the independent. Most all independents will caucus with the Dems...

NOTE ALSO that Nancy has strong competition, but with a small war-chest. YOU can help! Please donate generously to Cindy Shehan's campaign - CindyForCongress.org
.

[Liam]

To Nancy Pelosi:

Here's my proposal: Allow a vote on this if there's any good evidence to justify such a thing, or suffer an impeachment proceeding of your own.

This isn't an option, it's your ____-ing job.

Liam.

[RTIII]

While I want impeachment, and am REALLY pissed with Nancy...

If you mean to imply that Nancy is required to impeach, as some suggest, it's a mis-read of the constitution. It does use the word will in the sentence in question however, when you parse the sentence in its entirety, you can see that it means that the impeached official is removed from office upon conviction through the impeachment process - it does NOT require the impeachment process to ever be begun.

I have a suspicion that the founders never imagined the Speaker would be an accomplice of the president and that the house as a whole would permit the accomplice to remain speaker.
.

[RTIII]

Oops, typo!

It says, "shall" not "will." Sorry.
.

[Liam]

I understand the Constitution in this matter.

But I also understand that the Speaker of the House (and indeed all of the Senators and Congressmen) ultimately work for us, and that's supposed to include protecting our rights and acting as a check on the President.­.. and calling him out when he disobeys the rules.

I don't mean "It's your job" in the sense that she is in any way LEGALLY required to do it. I'm saying "It's your job" as in as the people she works for, we have a right to expect it of her. Certainly if Speaker Gingrich brought proceedings against President Clinton for something which is probably more common than not in Washington, then we've set the bar pretty darn low.

This administration absolutely rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's about time someone held them to task for it.

Liam.

[tililek]

Even without impeachment a compendium of ALL (or most) of the illegal or close to illegal activities of this administration will be a start in undoing those things we know about and those that have been hidden. I hope it will include all those signings of Bush that changed the laws passed by the legislature, as well as all those executive orders which should be reversed immediately. And, I'm sure others have lists of their own that could be added to the over-reaching of this administration.