Kucinich wins hearings but not on impeaching Bush

Please keep up the pressure for full impeachment hearings. Pelosi et al want to be able to publically bash Bush to get Obama in the White House and avoid whatever it is they are afraid of with real impeachment hearings.

Let's keep flooding them. And, seriously let's start focusing on some of these Republicans. Maybe start with the ones who went against party lines today. I think Gilchrest and Walter Jones are great possibilities for support.

If it does just end up being televised testimony about Bush's abuses perhaps what comes out will enrage enough Americans that others will start joining us to demand impeachment.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 492

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll492.xml

Republicans who voted Yes:

Congressman Kevin Brady (TX)

Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (MD)

Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC)

Representative Don Manzullo (IL)

U.S. Congressman Tim Murphy(PA)

Congressman Ron Paul (TX)

Congressman Dave Reichert (WA)

Congressman Christopher Shays (CT)

Representative Mike Turner (OH)

Remember how concerned they were about the morals of lying about sex. Lie about torture, about war, about spying and stealing and mishandling everything you ever did Bush. But never lie about sex. Oh please! Bush is probably a sexual deviant too. I don't care about that, although I was appalled that Clinton took up with a veritable child. He was the grown-up.

Bush's lies and gross immorality makes Clinton's pale into insignificance. I will write to the international court and refer them to your letter David.
4Peace

"Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of everything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power."

Mmm.

So, they're going to vent about Bush's crimes but do nothing about them?

That's like if the Founding Fathers ended the Declaration of Independence with "Alright, King George, we just wanted to get that off our chest. Carry on, O magnificent undisputed ruler!"

I beleive the legal scholars being present and giving specific information to violations will go a long way.
They'll be able to map out precisely and in propper order, these violations. Good idea having them along.

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing but not on removing President Bush from office."

This initial sentence of this AP article demonstrates just how out of touch this major source of news reporting is when it comes to Constitutional procedure.

the House does not have a role in "removing" the subject of an impeachment inquiry. As has been documented on this site numerous times by Constitutional scholars far more learned than myself, impeachment in the House is the investigation of suspected wrongful conduct by the President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States of America.

The House investigates, got that AP, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATES! Evidence is presented and reviewed at first in the Judiciary Committee and then Articles of Impeachment may be drawn up for a vote of the Committee members for potential referral to the entire membership of the House of Representaives. Should the entire membership of the House so vote that the Article(s) of Impeachment be sent to the Senate, then it is the Senate which sits as the jury with the trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court. After presentaion of the case against the impeached officer, the Senate is charged to vote to convict or acquit. Conviction spells removal from office.

I have said on several occasions that the most effective political strategy for the Democrats is to force the Republicans in the House first and then in the Senate (especially McCain) to have to hear the evidence and then vote, in the House yea or nay on any Articles presented for a full vote, and then in the Senate, guilty or not guilty. In the Senate, if the evidence is as overwhelming as we here feel is the case (as does a top prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi), any Congressperson or Senator who votes against the weight of that evidence will be committing political suicide.

Congress' paltry favorable rating percentage is precisely because it has failed to act to defend its Constitutional function and therefore the public's interests. Voting in accord with the weight of the evidence is really the only course of conduct which would be defensible by any incumbent.

Back to the AP. Their editors need a refresher course in High School Civics.