vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

5.09.2007

Pacifying the impeachers

Item: Congressman Peter Welch, D-Vt., to meet with Vermont impeachment group Saturday.

It seems like Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., is willing to do whatever it takes to keep the pro-impeachment crowd in Vermont happy, even if he himself doesn't favor having the House spend time drawing impeachment counts against President Bush or Vice President Cheney -- and even though the Democratic-controlled Vermont House deep-sixed an impeachment resolution 87-60 late last month.

Exhibit A: Under pressure from the group that staged pro-impeachment sit-ins recently at his office and at Sanders' and Leahy's shops, Welch agreed to a sit-down, one-hour session with pro-impeachment forces this Saturday in Hartford.

But that wasn't good enough for the impeachment aficionados. They said the 9 a.m. start time was just too early. And one hour was too little time. So the impeachers bombarded his office with a flurry of phone calls this week, finally prompting Welch to change the time to 11 a.m., and expand the session to 90 minutes.

Good for him. But, instead of thanks, impeachment leader James Leas wrote in a widely distributed e-mail Tuesday that move by Welch was proof the group had caught Welch in a conspiracy to stick it to the impeachers. And only the righteous efforts of people like Leas kept Welch from getting away with it.

"As we suspected there were other times! Peter Welch changed his mind about gaming the schedule to discourage Vermonters from coming," Leas wrote. "The public forum with Peter Welch to discuss impeachment will now be from 11am to 12:30pm this Saturday at the Hartford High School in White River Junction. Once again the beautiful voices of the people of Vermont prevailed upon our leaders. "

Earlier in the week, Leas had taken the same tone in an e-mail to Tricia Coates, Welch's Vermont office manager. Here's part of what he said:

"While people are incredibly dedicated to ending this war and impeaching Bush and Cheney they can identify a setup when they see it... They do not want our Congressman to be gaming the timing, location, notice, and duration of the meeting in a way that thwarts people's attendence or discourages them from coming. Particularly when our constitution and so many human lives are at stake."

Fair and balanced criticism of Welch? You decide.

-- Sam Hemingway

posted by vt.Buzz | 11:03 AM |

Comments:

Welch got elected because he lay down with the same mangy dogs whose whole existence seems to revolve around "see me! I'm for impeachment!". And now he has fleas. Hard to feel sorry for him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:48 PM, May 09, 2007

Actually, Welch got elected because Martha Raiville was a pityful candidate who ran a pityful campaign.

Sour grapes, Bubba. Sour Grapes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:37 PM, May 09, 2007

Welch got elected because we are in this war - plain and simple!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:05 PM, May 09, 2007

Welch got elected because he opposes this stupid war ... and Martha could only smooch Bush's messy behind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 PM, May 09, 2007

This just shows how unreasonable those advocating for impeachment are. Welch disagrees with them but is willing to take the time to meet with them and discuss this issue.

Are there any advocates for impeachment on here? Maybe they could explain why impeachment is justified here. (I'm guessing they can't because it's not justified.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:39 PM, May 09, 2007

I have asked the same question many times - no answers, only that they hate Bush.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:04 PM, May 09, 2007

I'm anti-impeachment and I hate Bush.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:45 PM, May 09, 2007

"Earlier in the week, Leas had taken the same tone in an e-mail to Tricia Coates...."

E-mail has no tone. It's a conglomeration of words put together and interpreted by whoever reads it. Leas just sounds tired of being jerked around by Welch who promised everything shy of impeachment in his campaign rhetoric. Now, Welch is supporting this joke of a war with his budget vote.

BTW, Bush violated the Hatch Act, FISA, the Geneva Convention, and Article 3 of the UNCAT (re: 'international rendition') to name only four examples why impeachment is long overdue.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:51 PM, May 09, 2007

"BTW, Bush violated the Hatch Act, FISA, the Geneva Convention, and Article 3 of the UNCAT (re: 'international rendition') to name only four examples why impeachment is long overdue."

The Geneva Convention and UNCAT are international in scope and therefore irrelevant to any question of impeachment. With regard to the Hatch Act an FISA, whether or not BUSH has violated these is a Constitutional question, not a criminal question. Bush has not committed a crime under US law. That's the problem with impeachment; regardless of the number of unconsitutional policies/acts of this administration, there is no crime. Is there is please tell me for I certainly would like to see Bush gone before 1/20/09 if this is possible.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 PM, May 09, 2007

skip impeachment. put Bush in jail.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:47 PM, May 09, 2007

you need a crime. that's sort of the point ....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:09 PM, May 09, 2007

Bombing the hell out of Iraq for no justified reason.

Torture (remember, Cheney has admitted that they use torture).

Wire tapping.

Yea, the Bushies belong in prison.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:33 AM, May 10, 2007

You still haven't identified a crime for which Bush should be impeached. Impeachment advocates consistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Constitution.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 AM, May 10, 2007

Under pressure from the group that staged pro-impeachment sit-ins recently at his office and at Sanders' and Leahy's shops...

Correction: Those sit-ins at their offices were about the votes on the Iraqi occupation supplemental. That was the focus. Impeachment may have been discussed, but it was not the main thrust of our sit in efforts. I was one of the protesters at all sit-ins.

# Posted by:

JayV | 11:08 AM, May 10, 2007

Wire tapping is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

Torture is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

Going to war for no good reason is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

I'm not an "impeachment advocate". I'm an imprisonment advocate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:05 PM, May 10, 2007

"Wire tapping is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

Torture is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

Going to war for no good reason is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

I'm not an "impeachment advocate". I'm an imprisonment advocate."

You're wrong. Wire-tapping is unconstitutional, not a crime. There's a difference.

Torture isn't unconstitutional and Bush personally hasn't tortured anyone.

Going to war for "no good reason" is not a crime. And the "no good reason" part is a matter of personal opinion.

The Constitution is not a criminal statute; the Constitution does not set out any crimes.

Bill Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury, which specific crime has Bush committed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:20 PM, May 10, 2007

Yes, torture is unconstitutional. Something called "cruel and unusual punishment"

Wire tapping is both a crime and a violation of my 4th amendment right to privacy.

Bush needs to go to jail.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:14 PM, May 10, 2007

"Wire tapping is both a crime"

which crime is wire-tapping. You can't do it but it's not a criminal act.

"Yes, torture is unconstitutional. Something called "cruel and unusual punishment" "

Torture is not punishment. Also, the constitution only applies to American citizens. I'm not advocating torture, just pointing out that it's not an impeachable offense.

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR POLICY IS NOT A CRIME. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. PLEASE TELL ME OF WHICH CRIME, SPECIFICALLY (I.E. PERJURY), BUSH IS GUILTY.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:07 PM, May 10, 2007

Wire tapping is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

"Torture is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

Going to war for no good reason is a crime. (You should read the Constitution)

I'm not an "impeachment advocate". I'm an imprisonment advocate. "

The above demonstrates the poster's lack of knowledge of the US Constitution. They are all nasty deeds and I don't like Bush. But wire-tapping is not a crime and not unconstitutional. There's no mention of wire-tapping in the constitution, and the constitution does not define what is and is not a crime in the US. The Constitution only deals with this in the 4th Amendment, which has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow wire-tapping in certain circumstances. We may not like Bush's wire-tapping schemes, but they do not automatically mean he violated the Constitution.

Torture likewise is not mentioned in the Constitution, Mr. know-it-all. Again, it's up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether torture violates the 8th Amendment.

And going to war for no good reason is not a crime either. Congress authorized this war, friend.

People who don't know what's in and what's not actually in the Constitutional shouldn't lecture other people on "reading the constitution."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:45 PM, May 10, 2007

And speaking of Peter "shameless" Shumlin . . .

I rarely agree with John McLaughry, but in today's MY TURN he's spot-on about Shakedown's Shumlin's Mafia-style treatment of Vermont Yankee.

Shumlin should be impeached.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:48 PM, May 10, 2007

The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." The first question is whether torture of non-U.S. citizens who are supposedly prisoners of war constitutes crual and unual punishment. I would argue that it does, but it's up to the Supreme Court, not me. So right here we have doutb about whether Bush violated the Constitution. Second, it's not clear that the 8th Amendment applies to non-U.S. citizens. Third, the U.S. is a party to international treaties that outlaw torture, but it is not clear that the violation of such a treaty (should it be proven true) constitues a violation of the Constitution for impeachment purposes. Fourth, so far I haven't heard any evidence that Bush personally ordered or approved the alleged torture.

I don't approve of torture of prisoners of war. But, as shown above, it is hardly clear that Bush violated the Constitution in a way that is a clear-cut case of impeachment.

Once again, the issue comes down to this: people who really hate Bush (myself included) and who "think" they know what the Constitution says, come to the easy conclusion that he should be impeached.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:06 PM, May 10, 2007

"it is not clear that the violation of such a treaty (should it be proven true) constitues a violation of the Constitution for impeachment purposes."

Most of the points in this post are right but I think it should be pointed out that you can't be impeached for violating the Constitution; you have to commit a crime (and as I and another person pointed out above, the Constitution does not say what is and what isn't a crime; legal statutes do).

All of those advocating for impeaching Bush for "unconstitutional" acts/policies should keep in mind that governments enact unconstitutional policies and laws all the time; this is the whole concept of judicial review.

This whole debate on impeachment puzzles me. Have these people taken a US History class or read the Constitution? One of the things I like about Vermont is its sometimes quirky generally left politics and actions, but the lack of intellectual seriousness on the part of impeachment advocates is very troubling.

I believe the Bush administration has been the worst thus far in our nation's history but that doesn't mean we can gloss over the Constitution and impeach him.

As John Adams wrote, we should be "a government of laws and not of men."
The Bush administration has not complied with all of these laws (in my view) but the answer is to get it to comply not to go the same route and ignore what the laws and Constitution actually say.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, May 10, 2007

Yes, torture is wrong, Mr. shout-your-point-of-view. But what happened in this case may not be considered to violate the Constitution (which I assume you have read throughly). Do you get it now? In addition, where's your evidence that the President ordered it? Do you get it now? Shouting that torture is wrong (which we all know) doesn't mean you have made a case for impeachment of George W. Bush. Do you get it now?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:23 PM, May 10, 2007

You're right. The impeachment movement is a bunch of (I assume) well meaning people who are equating their hatred of Bush (understandable) with impeachment.

Actually, I would argue that you do have to violate the Constitution. The Constitution says that a President may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution doesn't define a crime (laws do), but the crime has to fit the Constitutional test of being a "high crime or misdemeanor." Which is decided by the Supreme Court. If a President walks into WalMart and steals a pencil, he has definitely committed a crime. But I think most people would agree that he hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for an offense that wasn't a crime in any jurisdiction. Congress tried to impeach him because they didn't like his friendly attitude toward the South after the civil war. We know that the impeachment of Johnson was a low point in our history.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:31 PM, May 10, 2007

"but the crime has to fit the Constitutional test of being a "high crime or misdemeanor." Which is decided by the Supreme Court."

The way the impeachment process works is the House first votes on the issue of impeachment (this is like charging the president with a crime). If the House votes to impeach then the person basically is charged and goes to the Senate for the actual trial, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Therefore, this is the only role of the Supreme Court, it doesn't decide anything. It is the Representatives who decide the question of impeachment and the Senate that decides whether or not to convict the President.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:10 PM, May 10, 2007

Fair enough. But, again, the issue of what constitutes a "high crime and or misdemeanor" is undefined and undecided. I think the only people under our Constitution who decide what the words of the Constitution mean is the Supreme Court. Has it ever been decided what that phrase means?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:30 PM, May 10, 2007

I, like the person above, hate bush but adsolutely against impeachment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, May 10, 2007

"Has it ever been decided what that phrase means?"

It hasn't been in any authoritative sense. Generally it's understood that there needs to be some sort of criminal action.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:33 AM, May 11, 2007

Let's move on.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:41 AM, May 11, 2007

Since when does Sam Hemingway know anything about fair and balanced?

He's conspiring with his Isle La Motte Methodist cronies to tear the town apart and blame it on the people in town that don't have money.

Yeah Sam, fair and balanced.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 AM, May 11, 2007

Good question, when is the Freeps going to put down their rabid dog?

They turned him loose on Rainville and probably cost her the election.

It is an awful shame the way they let him just keep hounding an issue. All those stories about Isle La Motte, and none had any new information. Just Hemingway stirring a pot.

I cancelled my subscription because i get enough on the computer and when I walk by the newsstand. The paper really has gone downhill the last ten years.

The shining light is Candy Page and some of the new reporters. Maybe they should send Candy to places like Isle La Motte.

At least get Hemingway to cool the rhetoric a bit.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:47 AM, May 11, 2007