The Case for Impeachment Hearings

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions - within their official duties - that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton - involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship. The hard evidence that is presented at the hearings will be judged fully both by Congress and the American people. The evidence alone will determine the outcome, and if it is determined that Vice President Cheney committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" he should be properly impeached and put on trial before the Senate.

After the Democratic Party regained control of Congress, many - myself included - thought that it might be possible to meet President Bush half-way on the large issues facing our nation. Unfortunately, Bush has been nothing more than an ideological obstacle. He has vetoed stem cell research. He has vetoed efforts to bring our troops home from Iraq. He vetoed children's health care. So, the idea that we are somehow inhibiting Congress from passing our agenda by holding impeachment hearings - unfortunately - is a false argument.

Instead, I believe that we can both live up to our Constitutional obligation by holding hearings and pass a Democratic agenda. If President Bush perceives that the Democratic Congress is weak and unwilling to aggressively push our agenda - he will continue to veto legislation, such as children's health care - that is supported by a majority of Americans. The only way to move a progressive Democratic agenda is by acting through strength and following through on our core principles. A Congress willing to stand up to the abuses of the Bush Administration through impeachment hearings will demonstrate a strength of will that will more likely convince Bush to accommodate on issues such as Iraq, health care, and energy and environmental issues.

Today, I was joined by two other members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, who penned an online editorial with me calling for these impeachment hearings. In support of this effort I am releasing a call to action on video and launched WexlerWantsHearings.com. The full op-ed from the three Judiciary Committee Members can be read at this site. If we can get 50,000 or even more people to sign up in support of this effort I will report back to each and every Democratic colleague of mine the true power that exists behind this movement.

Comments

[RDixon]

Why is the NYT and the WaPo so afraid of Dick Cheney?
Are they afraid that he will show up in their news rooms with his paper shredding contractors and shred their last bit of credibility?

And, by the way, Clinton, who should have been convicted in his impeachment trial for using the office of President of the USA to obstruct justice, has absolutely nothing to do with this matter.

[kahalaman]

Congressman Wexler, congrats on passing the 50,000 mark. Godspeed. I hope you can get some traction on this!

[Maschine]

Yea for impeachment

[Maschine]

Why don't you all shut up and sign the petition already. Just say....


Yea for Impeachment

thats all i want to see, not your personal comments about it....sheesh.

[HanFeiTzu]

It's about time that another Democrat other than Dennis Kucinich rises to the occasion. But first, you must demand the resignation of Pelosi who has been nothing but an empty-suit -- AT BEST and quite possibly a criminal because of her awareness of the illegal torture of prisoners.

Then, consider dual Impeachment hearings. Nothing is written that prevents the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney together. Now that would be one for the history books!

[HearNoWeasel]

Thank you, Congressman Wexler. Your site currently has over 49000 signatures and I hope your goal of 50000 will be exceeded quickly. We are placing our hopes in you, as I trust you knew we would when you decided to start this effort.

Please fight to win this in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. It's absolutely the right thing to do. I also agree that it will be the only way for Democrats to get anything useful accomplished over veto-happy Bush's wishes.

[BillN]

Cheney should not only be impeached.. but seeing as how he is such a big fan of waterboarding and other forms of torture, let's include that as part of the impeachment protocol if it's so damned acceptable to these arrogant creeps.

[groucho]

Thanks, but what happened to the DowningStreetMemo impeachment talks? The hearings that were held in the basement.
Hope it works this time, can we have followup criminal proceedings?
If any of us had done anything similar, we'd be in court...or torture planes.

[Uosdwis]

One of the arguments the leadership makes is that to impeach after Clinton would seem like payback or "politicizing" it. It's almost as if the Newt boys said "lets do it to Bill, we know it won't work but it might, and it will poison the waters for generations to come!"

But now we know Pelosi and Reid are complicit in the warrantless wiretapping, which seals the deal, unless somehow there was a new, clean, Speaker elected.

[AnswerToJob]

Cheney first. He's pulling the strings, Bush is a front man and fundraiser; h/t and a darn good one too.
History is going to judge us very harshly if we don't take Cheney out.

[sneezeguard]

"After the Democratic Party regained control of Congress, many - myself included - thought that it might be possible to meet President Bush half-way on the large issues facing our nation."
----------­----------­----------­-

Ahh yes, the problem with the 'new-democrats.' They are simply Charlie Brown-- no matter the number of times the right has shown themselves incapable of bipartisanship, Dems still think that 'next time' it will be different. Keep running up to that ball Charlie, I'm sure Lucy won't pull it away at the last second THIS TIME. Pfffff....

[aznurse]

Please do!!! Im wondering how come there are over 1400 comments concerning what Bill said about Hillary and only almost 300 for this? This is what most of us want isnt it?

[rwe]

hear again , Clinton was impeached for legit reasons but really should have been censured,which the Democrats would not allow. so far no charges no crimes against Pres Bush and VP Cheney.HR333 really is the "show piece "

[win2kpro]

Mr. Wexler:

Perhaps you should watch this Bill Moyer's PBS special, or at least read the transcript regarding impeachment, where Bruce Fein (Associate Deputy Attorney General under former President Ronald Reagan), outlined potential cases against Dick (5 deferments) Cheney.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

You might also read the Articles of Impeachment drawn up by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 2003.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061

Also, the background notes.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5055&news_iv_ctrl=1061

I really don't understand why you need 50,000 signatures to perform your Constitutional Duty!


JOHN EDWARDS IN '08 (the republiCONS worst nightmare)

[ptarantino]

Great work! I really want a counter on your web-site to see how many people are signing up.