Progressive Democrat Issue 110: THOUGHTS

I have been for impeachment ever since it became clear to me that we were being "led" by a "president" who was corrupt, a criminal, lying to get us into wars, violating the Constitution, etc. But for various reasons I wasn't relly anxious to see impeachment attempted. It seemed too hard to achieve, too divisive when I wanted to see Democrats seen as the reasonable, uniting force in America, and I wanted to see Democrats get some things accomplished rather than be seen as obstructionist.

Several things have largely changed my mind. What crystalized it was meeting former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, at my local Democratic Club last week. You see, Liz Holtzman was a member of the House of Representatives in the early '70's and was one of the people who constructed the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. She has written a book on the topic called "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" and her top arguement for impeachment is based on an exact precedent from 1974. In other words, Bush has committed one act for which there already is an article of impeachment constructed, written and voted on in Congress. All that needs to be done is for the current Congress to apply the 1974 precedent to our current President.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in getting things done and if something isn't going to work you don't put a lot of time into it. So, I have been reluctant to support impeachment even though I feel the grounds are certainly there. When people talk impeachment I am tentatively interested, but I have tended to want to focus more on exposing Republican corruption to dispel the myth of the "moral" party, build the Democrats as the reasonable, effecitve, fiscally responsible and reformist party, and win some seats in Congress. Impeachment seemed like an impossible dream that could become a very damaging nightmare.

Well, we won some seats in Congress. And that changed one major thing: Impeachment could now be debated by Congress if they wanted to. BUT...I still wasn't ready. I felt it was more important to show America that we could get something done. Let's be the economic populist party, the progressive party, and work on things like the minimum wage, election reform, health care, stem cell research, education, etc. Only after we get some real concrete things done can we start battling over Iraq and impeachment, or so I thought.

Well, we have already been getting things done. The Democrats are leading the most productive Congress I can imagine. We need to keep it up for a bit, but I think we already are proving our worth to America. I hope the momentum keeps up for awhile, but clearly Iraq should be on the table and we have accomplished a great deal just by forcing debate on it. America likes what the Democrats are doing so far.

And what about impeachment? We have the House majority, and we have started to show we are an effective party that keeps its campaign promises and can get things done. The Republicans are coming off as obstructionist and petty. Do we have the credibility to raise the issue of impeachment?

Yes...and no. I want to explain why I now say yes, and ask your help to turn the little bit of "no" into a yes.

During a Democratic Primary for Congress in my neighborhood, I backed a candidate named Chris Owens. This Congressional primary got very little attention on dKos, but was extremely hotly contested, turning out to be one of the most expensive and divisive primiaries in history. And, in many ways, it was illustrative of the deep divides within the Democratic party: racial/ethnic divides, class divides, and ideological divides. One of the reasons I liked Chris Owens over the other candidates was he was, in my mind, a preacher for progressives. He was an articulate voice for progressive Democrats and I felt we desperately needed that. Sadly Chris lost. The failure of the national grassroots to come to our aid and the backing of big money and big unions pushed him aside.

One of the things Chris was a strong progressive preacher for was impeachment. He said clearly and publically that although there are many possible grounds for impeachment, we have one absolutely solid one: illegal wiretapping. I really wanted someone who could articulately voice that belief to go to Congress even if I wasn't quite ready to see it happen. You have to have your preachers in place before you get your converts. But I found that this message didn't attract local wealthy "progressives" in my neighborhood. They didn't want to hear "impeachment" and another of the candidates appealled more to them as the moderate candidate. He openly denigrated the idea of impeachment as getting in the way of accomplishing anything. His supporters told me to my face we didn't want another impeachment circus like the impeachment of Clinton. This further convinced me that we weren't ready to talk impeachment.

Then I heard Liz Holtzman, who has been through it before. If ANYONE can be called an expert on impeaching a President, it's Congresswoman Holtzman. With my mind already sympathetic to impeachment, and already feeling like Democrats are finally in charge and showing they are the party responsive to the people, hearing Conrgesswoman Holtzman finally convinced me that now is indeed the time to be working towards impeachment.

First off, what about the Clinton impeachment comparison? Are we just sinking to their level of partisan politics? The aswer is clearly "no." The people who look to the Clinton impeachment and reject the whole idea of impeachment are looking to the wrong precedent. The basis of impeachment of George Bush would be based on the Nixon impeachment, as I will outline below. The impeachment of Nixon was based on a bipartisan investigation by Congress uncovering clear Constitutional violations. The ultimate articles of impeachment were passed with BIPARTISAN support and widespread popular support among voters. By contrast, the impeachment of Clinton was based on his lying about a blow job and was a partisan witch hunt by right wing extremists. The final vote was along partisan lines and had little popular support.

Our model will be the Nixon impeachment. As such, the fundamental issues will be at the foundation of our democracy. Nixon's crimes were direct violations of the Constitution. As such, it is critical to impeach because otherwise the precedent is set for presidents to break the law. So, if the basis of impeachment for Bush is similar to that of Nixon, it is imperative we impeach. I know, I am behind the curve on this one, but it really only recently came home to me how clear this is.

So, what is the basis for impeachment of Bush? Just like Chris Owens advocated, illegal wiretapping. There are other bases for impeachment: lying about Iraq to get us into a war, failures surrounding Katrina, etc. They are outlined in Holtzman's book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush. All of those reasons are important and SHOULD be investigated. But, illegal wire tapping should be the starting point and is the basis for impeachment with the strongest precedent. Why? Because we already have the article of impeachment written up and have proven that it can get bipartisan support.

George W. Bush pesonally authorized about 45 wiretaps without court approval. He has also publically admitted that he has done this.

This is precisely what is covered in Article 2 of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon adopted by a bipartisan vote in Congress. Bush is guilty of a crime that was part of the Nixon impeachment. No new case has to be built from scratch. The framework for impeachment based on illegal wiretapping already exists from 1974.

Here it is:

Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

2. He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

3. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

5. In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

The 28 who voted for Article 2 included 6 Republicans. It's all there ready for us to use. Bush signed his name to the illegal wiretaps and has publically admitted it.

Liz Holtzman also noted that Bush really didn't need to resort to illegal means if he really needed to wiretap. In response to Watergate, Congress in 1978 set up a judicial mechanism by which the President can more easily get permission to wiretap through a court. That court has, since 1978, received some 19,000 requests from Presidents to wiretap. Out of those 19,000 requests only 5 have been denied. Why couldn't Bush go through this existing, Constitutionally approved method of wiretapping? He chose to break the law instead. Why? What was he doing that he felt he had less than a 5/19,000 chance of the court approving?

So there it is. I know many out there came to these conclusions earlier than I did. Sometimes it just takes a concatenation of events to drive a point home. Since November 2006 brought us into a majority in Congress, since we have established our credentials of getting things done and keeping promises, and since realizing the extent to which the illegal wiretapping violation of the Constitution is based on solid precedent, I now believe the time has come to push for impeachment. Or, the way I am thinking of it, there is clear probable cause to initiate impeachment based on Article 2 of Nixon's impeachment. There is possible cause for other articles of impeachment, but they can be added later once an investigation uncovers more facts. But an investigation must be initiated.

Now, here's where I need your help. I love our Democratic majority Congress. They are kicking ass, in my opinion. But, as in the impeachment of Nixon, widespread public support (or at least interest) must be demonstrated. It also would be very helpful if at least one Republican showed an interest. The pressure has to come from the public. Write your Representative and write the media urging impeachment of George W. Bush based on Article 2 of the impeachment of Richard Nixon. If they don't hear it from you they may not hear it from anyone and the meme may remain in the background. I don't expect action to be taken right away. After all, Congress really is getting things done. But a build up of support starting now (or for some of you starting MONTHS ago...thats for your efforts!) will make it happen.

Here's this week's newsletter:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INCOMPETENCE REWARDED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION


REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION IN NEVADA

BUSH AND THE MINIMUM WAGE (humor)

ALEX SINK: FLORIDA'S FUTURE GOVERNOR?

THE FUTURE OF NYC

NYC GROUPS AND EVENTS

NEW JERSEY GROUPS AND EVENTS

VIRGINIA FOCUS

DC FOCUS

VIRGINIA AND DC GROUPS AND EVENTS

IOWA FOCUS

MICHIGAN FOCUS


MIDWEST GROUPS AND EVENTS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS


CALIFORNIA GROUPS AND EVENTS