Dem lawmaker: Impeachment would break legislative logjam

December 13, 2007

In the vast majority of instances, Senate Republicans won’t allow lawmakers to vote on popular pieces of legislation. In those rare instances in which Dems can overcome GOP obstructionism — war funding, stem-cell research, healthcare for low-income children — the legislation draws a Bush veto.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) thinks he knows how to fix the legislative breakdown and bring some progress to Washington: impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. (via Raw Story)

At last week’s Palm Beach County Democratic Executive Committee meeting, Wexler took issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s declaration that impeachment should be “off the table.” And Wexler disputed the notion that impeachment hearings would be a distraction, asserting instead that they would help the Democrats’ domestic agenda and lift America’s status abroad.

“The way we pass stem-cell research, the way we get implemented a children’s health care plan, the way we get higher CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards to bring our energy debacle into a better condition for generations to come is to have impeachment hearings,” Wexler said. “Because that’ll get the president’s eye. That’ll get the vice president’s eye. That for the first time will show that the Democratic majority is here and that in fact we have the courage of our convictions.”

In addition, Wexler continued, hearings would strengthen America’s hand in dealings with Iran, China and others. Every day the House Judiciary Committee isn’t grilling Cheney is a day world leaders such as Indonesia’s Yudhoyono keep their distance, he said. He described Yudhoyono as someone who “wants to be closer to America, but he can’t because we are so negatively viewed. Well, let me tell you one more thing those impeachment hearings will do. They will make America more popular.”

Well, it would certainly raise some eyebrows, that’s for sure.

Now, in my heart of hearts, I don’t see this as at all likely. Congressional leaders have shown absolutely no interest in pursuing this, especially now that we’re less than a year from electing a new president and vice president anyway. And given that Dems would need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove Cheney from office, and there aren’t 17 Republicans ready to join Dems on this, the initiative probably isn’t going anywhere.

For that matter, I’m not entirely convinced that the Dems’ legislative agenda would suddenly start moving again in the wake of serious impeachment threats. Sure, Dems would “get the president’s eye,” but that’s not really the problem on the Hill right now.

Indeed, if Dems are anxious to show that they have “the courage of their convictions,” they can put impeachment aside and stop caving on everything from AMT to Iraq funding to the budget.

Not that impeachment isn’t warranted, of course, only that there are other ways of generating progress.

“Indeed, if Dems are anxious to show that they have “the courage of their convictions,” they can put impeachment aside and stop caving on everything from AMT to Iraq funding to the budget.”

At a minimum they should force the GOP Senators to truly filibuster.

An impeachment of Cheney, starting 6 months ago, might have shown/supported what Wexler is arguing (as was noted and argued many times by various commenters at this site months ago). But now? Don’t know if it would be as effective for the purposes argued by Wexler. Nevertheless, impeachment should be considered just because it is the right thing to doand to limit the damage these jokers in the Sadministration can do these next 12 months.

  • It is the principle that counts in this. Wexler may well be correct, the U. S. could raise its public image with a concerted effort to show the world that Bush/Cheney are considered unworthy of our further adulation.

    And I agree, make Mitch follow through on the filibusters. How else will the MSM take note that it is not JUST the Democratic leadership in the Senate that is poor, it is the minority that has hi-jacked the majority interest.

  • JRS Jr –
    Go Cheney yourself.
    You know as well as anyone that Congress is battered from both sides, unhinged Democrat haters (got a mirror handy?) from the “conservative” side, and war-haters from the liberal side.
    This type of move couldn’t lose more Dem Haters, you’re, er, they are already there. This could only pick up some support from the left.

  • Buzz-off, I am actually a moderate that is pissed off at both sides of the aisle… unlike all you finger pointers. This would only decrease the moderate majority’s view of congress.

  • Maybe impeachment, if nothing else, makes the statement that we see the lawlessness and intend to address it. Maybe time is running short for the office, but what if the same reasoning was applied to criminals based on their age? We have set a dangerous precedent by giving a pass for so many crimes.

  • “I used to like reading CB comments because people would not attack each other personally.”

    I guess the truth hurts some more than others around here, so they get in some sort of a rage and strike out against those who don’t follow and spin the liberal agenda to their liking.

  • In my opinion, it’s not about the politics, it’s about following the Constitution. Impeachment very much needs to be started. Pelosi needs to follow through on her oath or she is nothing more than Repub in Dem pant suit.

  • OK – I apologize for the outburst. Sorry, lyn5, my “Cheney” remark was meant to remind everyone of the level that the Republicans have sunk.

    Also, I get cranky when criminals like Cheney, Bush, and the illegal-war/occupation supporters appear to be getting off scott free. You know, people like Joe (we must attack Iran!!) Lieberman.

    But let’s look into that “majority” thing, shall we? What percentage of Americans want the US to get out of the occupation?

    “Moderate” is a relative term, and JRS Jr, from my vantage point, you are no moderate. But that’s just my opinion, given your comments. I agree with a few of them, yesterday’s comment on wasted Congressional time honoring different faiths, for instance. But then, I consider myself a fiscal moderat & a social liberal.

    Please accept my heartfelt admission of un-civility.

  • Sounds to me like mumbling in the right direction. Whatever method, the only way to save the U.S. as we know (knew) it, is to totally and completely, once and for all, repudiate and renounce the policies of pre-emptive war, occupation, and torture. Only after that could we begin to regain our sense and system of justice, and our place in the world as a righteous, trustworthy nation.

  • Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) thinks he knows how to fix the legislative breakdown and bring some progress to Washington: impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney.

    Sounds like a great idea, especially when Kucinich had it in April.

  • Wait, I’ve got an idea.

    Allow Bush/Cheney to finish their terms without any attempt to impeach them. Then, when they’re done, turn them over to the International War Crimes Court.

    Only thinking aloud.

    Yours Crankily,
    The New York Crank

  • JRS Jr can claim all he wants that he’s a moderate, but he’s really just an idiot troll (his screeching about Al Gore’s energy use is probably the clearest proof of his trollishness). Why he keeps coming around to get what trolls always get is a mystery. I guess some masochistic trolls like to get pounded.

    BTW, in case anyone who’s not a troll is wondering, the national opinion polls on impeachment were well into the viable category quite a while back*. Since it is now generally agreed that Bush lied about the WMDs**, impeachment would have been popular and cathartic. That said, I can’t see it being a good move in the midst of an election cycle. Nancy Pelosi sold us out, and she needs to go ASAP.

    * http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

    ** Not that I care much, but JRS might like to say whether he agrees Bush lied or not.

  • If I thought Bush/Cheney would be prosecuted after their terms, I’d let it go until then. But what is likely to happen is a pronouncement of “at long last, the national nightmare is over” and pardons all around.

    Seriously, what is the down side of impeaching a 30 percent president who most Americans see as clearly breaking the law and lied us into war?

  • Impeachment as a political tool? What kind of insanity is this? Impeachment is a Constitutional process to eject a criminal president from office (and vp, and others, as warranted). It’s also a responsibility of Congress. They failed miserably to do their jobs over the last seven years and now it’s too late. It should have been Pelosi’s first order of business when the Dems took over. Instead, she took it off the table.

    I don’t know how this nation will ever recover from failing to impeach Cheney/Bush. It sets a precedent, raises the bar to the stratosphere for judging future presidents. In effect, it has politicized criminal behavior. There are no standards anymore, only politics, only one party battling another. No governance at all. Just a big food fight.

    And the toughest party wins, and we all know who they are. They impeached Clinton for virtually nothing. The Democrats wouldn’t even consider proceedings against the most corrupt administration in history.

    Ironically, both parties politicized the impeachment process. The Republicans to use it inappropriately, the Democrats, to fail to do their Constitutional duty.

    It’s a truly historic, egregious failure of our government, in my opinion. It’s been completely hijacked by politics.

    And it’s too late now to do anything about it. The Democrats can’t accomplish anything. How could they pull off an impeachment/conviction, even if they had the will, the spine, which they don’t?

  • At the very least, such hearings would *finally* put onto the table, in the most public manner possible, all of this Administration’s misdeeds. Witnesses, interviews, paper trails–all of it. Whether it leads to impeachment is not the point (at this late date, alas); the point is to spotlight all of it, how it all ties together, and make people see it.

    Maybe some lights will come on, maybe not. But history will have a very public record of it all, instead of the piecemeal manner in which these crimes have been presented to the public, and the fortuitous (for the Administration) public short-term memory that forgets the past. A nice, comprehensive look at it all, hearing by hearing. And instead of the outrage fatigue experienced by those of us who have been following this all along, through day after day of Executive transgression, perhaps the whistling public would respond to wave after wave of truth between now and November 2008–that would result in a voting backlash that would make the 2006 elections look like mere child’s play.

  • “I guess the truth hurts some more than others around here, so they get in some sort of a rage and strike out against those who don’t follow and spin the liberal agenda to their liking.”

    Racer, another perfect example

  • “Nancy Pelosi sold us out, and she needs to go ASAP”

    Racer, is there any politician that is good and smart enough to please you?

  • hit_escape

    There’s no possible American pardon for prosecution and conviction by the ICC, which I believe will eventually prosecute some in the Bush administration if they aren’t prosecuted in the US. Whether a conviction would result in justice is anybody’s guess, and I’m so accustomed to seeing the administration getting away with crime after crime that I’d be glad at least if those crimes were exposed for the world to see and the perpetrators declared guilty of war-crimes, even in absentia. It would certainly curtail their foreign travel!

    Maybe actual justice will need to come accidentally. Perhaps a bunch of Dick Cheney’s friends could get drunk and take him hunting. Perhaps Laura can feed George pretzels and booze, apparently one of his favorite, more personally-dangerous, addictions. Maybe he’ll try to milk a rogue stallion again.

  • There is enough happening to generate outrage and disgust without responding to trolls.

    If the US government pardons Bush/Cheney et al for war crimes, that does not impact international law. Bush can have his post-presidency security detail outside his jail cell.

  • Agreed that impeachment is the duty of Congress, not the prerogative, when public officials abuse their office and/or violate national and international law – which is clearly the case here. I also agree that the Republican-controlled Congress was derelict in its duty for the first six years of the Bush Maladministration. I disagreed with Speaker Pelosi’s taking impeachment off the table at the start of the new Congress, but I could understand her reasoning (and that of the Democratic leadership in Congress) that impeachment would harm bipartisan cooperation in passing their legislative agenda. But now? Now that the Republicans have shown that there will be no bipartisanship and no legislative agenda? What can possibly be their excuse now? Yes, they should go full steam ahead with impeachment.

    2 more points: First, about the “viability” of impeachment. It is quite likely true that there are not at this time 17 Republicans (or for that matter 51 Democrats) who would vote to convict Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. That is not to say that impeachment is unviable or a waste of time. Rep. Wexler’s point is germane, and, as the impeachment scholar Bruce Fein has said, “The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2172547/pagenum/all/)

    No matter what the House leadership or the pundits or the commenters on this blog think, the “viability” of impeachment is something that should be determined by the American people, after the facts are laid out in the form of House Judiciary Committee hearings. Even without authoritative information from the House leadership and the major media, more than 50% of Americans agree that the Bush administration has committed impeachable offenses, and almost 40% outright favor impeachment. Who can say that public opinion would not swing decisively in favor of impeachment if hearings were held? And if public opinion demands it, lawmakers will vote for it. That’s what they do.

    Second, about the distraction impeachment would cause for the presidential campaign. It’s a distraction that would help a Democratic candidate. We are facing an unprecedented situation this year, due to the frontloading of the presidential primaries. Hillary Clinton’s imputed remark may well be true that it will all be over after February 5. That leaves almost six months between the essential selection of the nominee and the formal nomination in August. During that time, money raised for the primary and general campaigns may not by law be spent. This period is a target of opportunity for Republicans. If they (as Rove has predicted) have a damaging smear waiting in the wings, this is a time they can bring it out. The media will be hungry for fresh meat, and the unofficial candidate will be hampered in responding to it. It will be too late for the voters to go for their second choice. The Republicans’ scandal might go on for weeks and weeks unimpeded. And the only thing I can think of that would be bigger than this – big enough to wean the media off their love of slease and conflict – would be impeachment hearings. Hearings could put the Republican crimes fresh before the public and keep the mud in the background, for weeks and weeks. That’s what the hearings could achieve – with or without a full majority vote in the House and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Personally, I welcome the prospect.

    P.S. Don’t get your hopes up about justice after the perps leave office. Bush will most likely pardon everyone who ever did anything, and may even be able to pardon himself. And the U.S. never ratified its membership in the International Criminal Court, remember? So there’s no jurisdiction there. Impeachment is our best option, possibly our only option.

  • Why is it again we don’t want to go nuclear on these guys. We can at least threaten the nuclear option, after all it worked for them. Let’s get some of these things passed by playing hardball if we have to. I’m tired of our side playing by gentlemen’s rules when they don’t mind kneecapping us.

  • I am REALLY getting disgusted with watching the so-called leaders of the Democratic party cowering under their desks and soiling themselves at the mere thought of attracting the attention of the Republican smear machine and having a talking point aimed in their direction.

    I would understand Nancy Pelosi saying impeachment would be a waste of time because there are 34 Republicans in the Senate (well… 33 Republicans and one “independent”) who could watch Bush sodomize and strangle a five-year-old child on the Senate floor and would STILL faithfully parrot whatever ridiculous talking points the White House puts out, like:

    “Under the Iraq war resolution the President has the power to declare someone to be a ‘future terrorist’ and he has the authority to take preemptive action against them. And there is an ongoing investigation so we can’t comment. And it didn’t happen anyway.”

    If Pelosi said something like that, which ACKOWLEGED the deep anger felt about this administration by the people who put the Democrats back in the majority, I’d be willing to give her a pass (on impeachment, anyway).

    Instead, we see the Democrats hold hearings into the scandal du jour that never result in any actual action. We see the Democratic leadership doing exactly what King George demands – on Iraq funding, on the budget, on warrentless spying, and on and on – and trying to tell us each time that they didn’t cave to the Republicans.

    I’m not in favor of forming a “circular firing squad”, but we have to do SOMETHING to make the Democratic leadership more afraid of the voters than they are of Fox News.

    I suggest everyone who is tired of the DLC control of the Democratic party take a stand. I suggest we all support Cindy Sheehan in her bid to become the Democratic party’s nominee for Nancy Pelosi’s House seat.
    http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

    And I’m not talking about just lip service. I mean send money – enough to counter all the corporate bribes contributions that the party power structure will bring to support Pelosi.

    Or… we can all just sit here and watch the Democrats hold the Republicans’ coats while they dig a hole too deep for the country ever to climb out of.

  • There is no downside to impeachment of Cheney. Whether he’s indicted or removed from office is inconsequential to the good it would do just to have the hearings. Republican obstructionism could be mentioned on a daily basis. Cheney is so unpopular that the entire nation would be riveted to the hearings like the OJ trial.
    With a special prosecutor assigned there would be no more “executive privilege” blocking the investigations. What we already know publicly about Cheney is enough to fill volumes but what new evidence we would discover by such hearings will ensure democratic successes for generations. It would weaken support for Bush and his agenda and would weaken republican obstructionism in the senate by making them fear for keeping their seats in the next election.

    Finally we have a lawmaker with an ounce of sense in his head on the matter of impeachment. You could hear the clapping and stomping of feet across the nation. Excitement would fill the global atmosphere because there was never a person more deserving of impeachment than Dick Cheney. There would be no other issue of such profound and great importance than this.

    We are just now finding out that Pelosi had ulterior motives for keeping impeachment off the table which stems from her position of the House intelligence committee, which due to an oath of secrecy no one knew about. She might be complicit in allowing torture knowing it was illegal.

    This would be a saving grace for the dems. It’s one of the reasons their approval ratings are so low. They have to be forced to defend the constitution and make this administration accountable. The world is watching their cowardice with great disappointment. It would be a good way to get senate repubs to quit blocking all legislation because Cheney would make them all look so bad that they wouldn’t survive looking any worse by continuing this obstructionism. Why can’t the dems see it?

  • ***btw*** thought this was pertinent to this discussion. Comes from an interview on air america with Johnathan Turley:
    ”

    Randi: let’s go back to what you once told me; I think it was a week or two ago where you told me that you believe there was some sort of unwritten sort-of-a handshake/wink/nod between the republicans and the democrats when it comes to impeachment of this president.

    Turley: there’s no question about it–it’s well understood on capitol hill that Nancy Pelosi and others have assured that the president will not be subject to impeachment and that’s one of the reasons why they’ve been avoiding confirmation of crimes: the two most obvious being domestic surveillance (without a warrant) and torture. If either of those facts are confirmed it would trigger a series of events and it would require them to do exactly what they promised they wouldn’t do–which is to look at impeachment. But it would also, as we know now, embarrass many democrats who were aware of this stuff. One of the interesting things about this administration is how skillful they are because if you look at electronic surveillance and torture–both of those cases clearly are criminal. But once they started, anybody with a J.D. could see that they were about to do something criminal. So what did the Bush administration do? They brought in democrats and essentially co-opted them by giving them information. So when they revealed to these people that they were torturing people they did it in 2002 when they knew that no democrats wanted to look weak on terrorism. But as time went on, those same democrats could no longer come forward because they would have to explain why they waited so long. It’s a brilliant move. ”
    This suggests that Nancy Pelosi had selfish reasons for keeping impeachment off the table. Perhaps it helps explain why she removed it before the issue or question ever came up.

    ***JRS***just so we’re clear…moderates are not in the majority as far as voters are concerned though they may be in the congress. But the public majority is now progressive liberals and they are the center, not the left. Moderates in congress are republican light incumbents and will change or eventually lose their seats to progressives. Sometimes it’s easier just to be a cynic. Once you establish yourself as a beltway insider you get comfortable and just go about avoiding conflict. I think there should be term limits.

  • Sorry, CB.
    Not with you here.

    A 300-lb policeman who catches a burglar slipping out a window carrying a flat screen TV is REQUIRED to chase the 18 year old strapping youth even though the chances of arresting him are virtually nil.

    If there are high crimes and misdemeanors reasonably suspected, impeachment hearings MUST take place. To not do so gives presidents of the future confidence that they will suffer no ill effects of malfeasance.

    Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted regardless of the chances of success if Congress believes they have engaged in criminal behavior. If criminal behavior can be proved and the Republicans choose to keep a criminal in office, setting the record straight for history is performing proper service for our country.

    More so than passing S-CHIP or any other baby-step legislation they find so worthy that they would ignore their Constitutional duties.

  • I get the feeling that Cheney has some blackmail information on Pelosi and other Democratic leaders and thats why impeachment is off the table.

    Cheney is slimy enough to do this.

  • SB, like every commentator and Congresscritter I’ve seen, assumes that all votes will be solely on party lines. Hearings have not yet been held! You’re assuming that no evidence could be so compelling, or could incite such public outcry (i.e. so piss off voters and endanger reelection) as to move 17 Republicans to vote the evidence rather than the party. It assumes that Congress is so toally corrupt, and the public so apathetic, that defeat is inevitable. Me, I’m guessing that a wealth of such evidence is out there, waiting to be revealed, and that impeachment hearings would do that.

    Come on, people, nothing ventured, nothing gained…

  • Pingback: Corral for the week of 12/10-14 « My 2 Cents

    • Comments are closed.