[NYTr] DeFazio Cringes from Impeachment

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

sent by MichaelP (activ-l) - Jul 23, 2007

What's missing in this deFazio response is reference to what the Senate 
membership will do "tommorrow" this in contrast to what it does "today
" And while he's correct in saying that impeachment can't succeed
without the Senate, y'all may remember that with Nixon, the House
agreed there was a case for impeachment, a case so strong on the facts
demonstrating high crimes or misdemeanors that Nixon took the wise way
out by resigning from office. That's a much more solid a precedent that
what happened with Clinton - where the House agreed there was a case
for impeachment in which the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors was
based on the plaausibility of a blow-job.

And there's no sign that there's any legislative reponse to the
signing of one executive order after another whereby, which could be
tested in the courts over the next decade; deFazio's desire to get on 
with "to make progress on other priorities, such as taking on the oil 
companies; reorienting our energy policies toward clean, renewable 
electricity and fuels, as well as conservation; reforming and funding
the No Child Left Behind law; expanding access to health insurance and 
affordable health care; among many other issues you and I care about." 
won't do either him or us much good if deFazio is blocked from serving
in the house, maybe put in a camp under Bush's current claims of
authority.

Where he addresses the need to send a message to future presidents,
there is an even stronger need to send a message to current
legislators. Indeed they have the power to restructure the feeling of
the majority of Senators, Republicans among them.

Certainly there can be no objection to censuring the executive by
getting H.Res. 530 approved, but

DeFazio doesn't address the notion of of conspiracy to deny civil 
liberties; it maybe doesn't matter to compliant legislators, but until
the current legislators stop dithering, there can be no reliance on the 
ability of any non-complioant legislator to remain free even if only to 
dither. Certainly Stalin maintained a fully compliant legislature -
Hitler persuaded the German legislature to disband itself

Michael

++++++++++++++++++++

Begin forwarded message:

   From: Denzer/Field <potlatch at cmug.com
   Date: July 23, 2007 3:21:16 PM PDT
   To: nowar <nowar at peak.org
   Subject: [nowar] FW: Reply from Congressman Peter DeFazio

   RE: Impeachment.

   I made calls this am, and got this from deFazio; I thought it was
   important info, worth noting

   Kiko Denzer

   ------ Forwarded Message
   From: "Congressman Peter DeFazio" <or04ima at mail.house.gov
   Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:35:50 -0400
   To: <potlatch at cmug.com
   Subject: Reply from Congressman Peter DeFazio

   Dear Sir:

   Thanks for your message in support of impeaching the President,
   Vice President, or both.  I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

   I share your outrage at the administration's many transgressions
   over the last six-plus years.  I have used my voice and my vote to
   oppose the administration on multiple fronts.  I have always
   opposed the war in Iraq.  I voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT
   Act.  I voted against the legislation establishing military
   tribunals, which also included provisions retroactively immunizing
   administration officials for authorizing torture and provisions
   allowing the President to detain American citizens indefinitely
   without charge.  I voted against legislation authorizing
   warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I have led the effort
   to prevent the administration from attacking Iran without
   congressional authorization. Despite my long and vocal record of
   opposition to the administration's harmful policies, I believe that
   impeachment is a dubious strategy that will fail to bring about the
   change our country needs.

   Supporters of impeachment need to ask themselves a question: is the
   primary goal to attempt to personally punish the President and Vice
   President or is it to reverse the many detrimental policies that
   have been enacted over the last six years?

   If it is the former, then I can understand why individuals would
   believe an attempt to impeach is the best option.  But, if it is
   the latter, which is what I think the goal should be, then
   impeachment will not work because even if Members of the House put
   aside all urgent issues and consumed the next six months with
   impeachment and then voted to impeach, the Senate will never vote
   to convict the President or Vice President and remove them from
   office, meaning at the end of the process they will remain in
   office with their policies unchanged and all that will have been
   accomplished is a 6-12 month delay in trying to overturn their
   harmful policies.

   The reason I draw that conclusion is based on the math in the
   Senate.  Even with the Democratic takeover of Congress last
   November, there are only 51 Senators that caucus with the
   Democratic Party (including two independents, Joseph Lieberman of
   Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont).  Even if all of these
   individuals supported impeachment (an unlikely prospect given the
   large number of conservative Democrats, not to mention Senator
   Lieberman), it would still require 16 Republicans to vote to
   convict the President or Vice President (2/3rds of the Senate, 67
   votes, are needed to convict and remove from office).  There is no
   evidence that any Republicans, let alone the 16 or likely more that
   would be required, will consider voting in favor of impeachment.

   Just because an impeachment strategy is certain to end in failure
   doesn't mean Congress is impotent in terms of holding the
   administration accountable or reversing harmful policies.

   I have advocated for an aggressive strategy of hearings,
   investigations (including the use of subpoena power) and
   legislation to overturn the administration's harmful policies.

   This strategy is already bearing fruit.  Although there are not yet
   quite enough votes in Congress to force a change in the President's
   Iraq policy, the President has been seriously challenged on Iraq
   since the Democratic takeover via both hearings and legislation.
   There have been multiple votes on bringing our troops home and
   establishing enforceable benchmarks for the administration's
   policy.  This is something that did not happen under Republican
   control when the President was provided whatever he wanted with no
   questions asked.  Further, the aggressive Democratic oversight has
   contributed to crumbling support for the President and his war even
   among members of his own party as evidenced by the recent public
   defections of key Republican senators.

   Further the investigation and hearings into the political firings
   of U.S. Attorneys (again, something that never would have happened
   under the prior Republican leadership in Congress) have led to the
   resignation of several senior Justice Department personnel and
   hopefully will force out the Attorney General as well.

   The Democratic takeover also led the administration to cave-in on
   its warrantless wiretapping program, agreeing earlier this year to
   subject future requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
   Act (FISA) Court. Though, what the administration is actually
   submitting to the FISA Court needs further oversight.

   And, while the administration continues to try to obstruct various
   investigations, Democratic leaders have not been shy about
   threatening to issue contempt citations and to take the
   administration to court to enforce subpoenas for testimony and
   documents.

   Finally, I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would suck all of
   the oxygen out of Congress, bringing all other issues to a halt and
   making it impossible to make progress on other priorities, such as
   taking on the oil companies; reorienting our energy policies toward
   clean, renewable electricity and fuels, as well as conservation;
   reforming and funding the No Child Left Behind law; expanding
   access to health insurance and affordable health care; among many
   other issues you and I care about.

   Since impeachment will not succeed in the Senate, pursuing it will
   not actually do anything to hold the administration accountable or
   overturn harmful policies.  It would be a hollow effort.  So the
   choice is real action via hearings, investigations and legislation,
   or symbolic action that won't change anything via impeachment. I
   prefer real action.

   That said, for those concerned that a message needs to be sent to
   future presidents, I am a cosponsor of H.Res. 530, a resolution
   censuring President Bush for his manipulation of intelligence
   leading up to the war in Iraq, the leaking of the identity of an
   undercover CIA agent's name, and the pardoning of I. Lewis
   "Scooter" Libby.  Passage of this resolution, which only requires a
   majority vote, would send a powerful signal to future presidents
   and congresses.

   Thanks again for contacting me.  Please keep in touch.

   Sincerely,

   Rep. Peter DeFazio
   Fourth District, OREGON

   ******Please do not respond directly to this email from:Denzer/Field
  <potlatch at cmug.com *****