vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

5.16.2007

Impeachment speech

Rep. PeterWelch's floor speech about impeachment is up on his Web site. You can watch it by clicking HERE.

What that means is that it's now in the congressional record that a bunch of Vermonters wanted impeachment. That's it's probably about all the impeachment advocates will get, but it's something.

Is there a next step to the impeachment strategy?

Here are excerpts:

Vermonters have such extraordinary concern, particularly with the
prosecution of the war in Iraq, that many are now calling for the President and
Vice President to be impeached.
...
"I applaud these citizen activists who have acted in the Vermont tradition
of taking a principled stand on issues of conscience. They raise valid
concerns about the actions of this Administration and actions allowed to go
unchecked by the previous Congress. They are right. The concerns
they have are well founded.

...

"Madame Speaker, while I disagree impeachment is the remedy, I completely
share the goal, which is to restore honest and just leadership to our
government.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 2:44 PM |

Comments:

As I posted in another topic, I was one of those adamently opposed to impeachment (because I couldn't find the necessary crime which the Constitution requires) but after reading an article from the Jan 31, 2007 Times by James Bamford titled "Bush Is Not Above the Law," I've become convinced that there is valid reason for impeachment. Here's a link to the article for those with Times Select: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10A1FF73F5B0C728FDDA80894DF404482.

This is the first time I've seen someone point to a specific crime for which Bush can be impeached. The wiretapping program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and violation of this act is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Bush is guilty of a felony. This is a much more substantive crime than oerjury for which Clinton was impeached. The time has come for our leaders to get the ball rolling for impeachment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:12 PM, May 16, 2007

The impeachment movement is dead. Hopefully the supporters of this movement will find themselves gainful employment this summer and move on with their lives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:51 PM, May 16, 2007

Hey look, some anonymous ahole can cut and paste stupid jokes ... but he can't defend his crook of a President.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:25 PM, May 16, 2007

Let's just get past this lazy fascination with "impeachment"!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:25 PM, May 16, 2007

I don't understand how this "fascination" with impeachment is lazy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:51 PM, May 16, 2007

Ho-Hum

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:20 PM, May 16, 2007

To add to FISA, there was
violation of the Hatch Act, the Geneva Convention (water boarding as confessed by Cheney), and Article 3 of UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture) for his "extraordinary renditions".

Impeachment is now apparently a tool only to be used by extremist Republicans.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:03 PM, May 16, 2007

Why don't you impeachment morons take a bath, read the Constitution (or get someone who went to school pre-NEA to read it to you) and maybe get a job. Oh yes, also read the comments by every major dimocrat pre-2002 on why we should be attacking Iraq for WMD's not to mention violation of UN sanctions, etc. etc. DUH!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:11 PM, May 16, 2007

Bubba, I have read the Constitution. In violating the FISA, Bush committed a felony. Thus he is impeachable.

He's not responsible for violating the Hatch Act, Geneva Conventions, and the UNCAT because these things are not crimes (as far as I know).

He is impeachable for violating the FISA.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:45 PM, May 16, 2007

Bubba does not know what FISA is.

Please use smaller words so that he can understand you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 PM, May 16, 2007

In the case of arguing for or against impeachment, it's obvious when others distract from the conversation with snippets offering nothing to the dialogue.

In the absence of a sound counter-argument, it seems fair to say that there is no dispute that impeachment is warranted.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:29 PM, May 16, 2007

Excuse me, know-it-alls. I disagree with Bush's position on FISA. Strenuously. But he got legal advice, however questionable, that his wiretap program didn't violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many legal scholars don't agree with the Bush administration's interpretation on FISA, but many do. So there's hardly an open and shut case that Bush broke the law. Bottom line: you hate Bush so you want to impeach him. Now get back to your jobs, if you have them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:15 PM, May 16, 2007

It's questionable whether he actually did or whether his office and Cheney's basically handed down the "legal advice." This advice basically was wrung out of certain members of the Justice Department. A lot has come out recently in the testimony of James Comey, Ashcroft's deputy.

The claim is that FISA basically was by the Congressional Resolution for the war. Do you really believe that? The judge in Michigan didn't.

The bottom line is that so far in this case, a Federal judge in Michigan has ruled that Bush committed a felony by violating FISA. I'm not saying whether or not he did, I'm simply listening to a judge who has authority on the issue.

Could you find me a legal "scholar" other an Addington, Yoo, or Feith who truly believes that Bush didn't violate FISA?

-JPS

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:06 AM, May 17, 2007

A "judge" in Michigan? The left can always cherry-pick for an ACLU-type judge that will do anything to destroy our way of life. Just look at the left-wing trash posing for "judges" in Vermont.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:21 AM, May 17, 2007

The important thing is to get out of this war - impeachment is moot.
He will be gone before you even get to it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:31 AM, May 17, 2007

So because Bush got "legal advice" he didn't break any law?

And because I care that the POTUS endorsed TORTURE, I don't have a job ??????

Somebody here has a problem with logic.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:33 AM, May 17, 2007

Bubba, this administration had admitted that the NSA program doesn't comply with the FISA.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:29 AM, May 17, 2007

Yes, that's correct. If there is a difference of opinion among legal scholars about whether the administrations program violated FISA, then it cannot be said that the administration broke the law. The fact that a federal judge concluded that the program violated FISA (which I happen to agree with, by the way), does not mean that the President knowingly broke the law. What is so difficult to understand about this, sir?

The exact same thing applies to the torture. You make wild accusations that the President "endorsed torture" but what are the facts that the President actually ordered this and said "I don't care if it's illegal"? (And your use of caps doesn't make your position any stronger).

Your rightful concern at administration policies does not make out a case for impeachment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:31 AM, May 17, 2007

The left-wing idea of "torture" was when a group of mangy "insurgents" were forced to listen to Christine Aguillera songs repeatedly. The only thing worse would be to have to listen to Bernie Sanders drone on to his usual empty galleries in Washington about "the rich".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:50 AM, May 17, 2007

The question of whether or not Bush knowingly broke the law is irrelevant. If he broke, the law, he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he was ignorant of the law.

The fact that a judge ruled that the NSA violated FISA does in fact mean that Bush broke the law because of section 1809 of FISA which says that anyone who violates the law is punishable by a $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail. Again whether or not Bush knew he was violating FISA is irrelevant.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:09 PM, May 17, 2007

No, sir, that's not correct. Many violations require "intent." And if you're going to impeach the President, it has to be on the basis of what HE did, not on the basis of what one or more of the millions of people in "his" government might have done. The Republicans didn't try to impeach Clinton because some unidentified bureaucrat in the Clinton administration lied under oath, but rather because HE lied under oath. You can't impeach the President because someone in the administration broke the law, unless the President specifically directed that person to break the law. What's so hard to understand about this?

The fact that (a judge ruled) that the NSA broke the law does not mean the Bush himself broke the law.

If your kid drinks and drives, did you break the law?

Show me where Bush said, "I want you to do this and I know it's illegal."

Then you can talk about impeaching him.

Until then, you're still talking about impeaching the President because you don't like his Administration's policies.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:22 PM, May 17, 2007

Bush: "In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the
National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to
intercept the international communications of people with known links to al
Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor: "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed
statutory policy of our Congress."

"The President, undisputedly, has violated the provisions of FISA for a five-year
period."

In short, the judge not only ruled that the NSA broke the law; she ruled BUSH broke the law.

WRT intent, it's still not necessary, but do you really think that Bush didn't understand that the wiretapping program violated the FISA?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:06 PM, May 17, 2007

No, I don't necessarily believe that he understood that the wiretapping program violated the law. Notice how he said, "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." Multiple people with law degrees from top notch law schools were telling him that in their judgment the program was legal.

Most commentators whom I've heard disagree with that (as do I), and now one federal judge has also spoken. Good. Does that mean that President Bush knowingly violated FISA. Not hardly.

And yes, in these circumstances, intent does matter. You can't impeach a President for doing something that he didn't believe violated the law. Maybe he's lying. But you'll never prove it.

So what this will boil down to is "policy." His position is that he did what he thought was right and necessary and he was told and believed that it was consistent with the law. That's called policy. You can't impeach a President for policies you don't like.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:12 PM, May 17, 2007

Do not spend one dime of taxpayer money to "impeach" bush! It is a waste of time and our hard earned money. He is the worst president ever but getting out of the war is more important.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:18 PM, May 17, 2007

"You can't impeach a President for policies you don't like."

I completely agree with this statement and have argued it extensively on this blog. However, the ultimate question is whether or not Bush broke the law, not whether or not he knew or believed he was breaking the law (it's my belief that he, and all of his "legal advisors," knew that he was breaking the law and simply didn't give a shit). This is an instance of one of his policies not only being bad, but also being against the law.

The solution to the dilemma is for the House to impeach him (this basically is an indictment) and then for the Senate to try him. There is a specific crime that he should be charged (violation of FISA) and so he should be impeached (again this is basically indictment). Then the Senate will decide the case.

You are arguing that basically because he hasn't admitted breaking the law, that he hasn't. This doesn't make sense at all. I'm not saying he should be removed from office without a trial or anything. I'm saying that there clearly is enough evidence to indict him so there should be a trial.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:29 PM, May 17, 2007

I'm done arguing with you. What do I care -- go ahead and spend your time trying to convince people to impeach him. It won't work and I'm glad of it because a constant partisan-driven cycle of "we elect, then the other side impeaches" is ruinous for America. And that is exactly what is happening here. A bunch of partisan assholes impeached Clinton for no good reason so now we're going to impeach their guy. And it's a lead pipe guarantee that, just as happened when the Republicans did it in 1998, there will be a backlash. The other side (i.e., Republicans) will retake Congress in 2008, and will also either get a Republican president, too, or will impeach the Democratic president if he or she manages to get elected.

We have an excellent chance of taking the Presidency in 2008 and increasing our majority in Congress. But an impeachment attempt could completely reverse that.

But go ahead. See if I care. You won't succeed anyway. And it's like trying to argue over abortion. You're morally right and the rest of us are immoral, corrupt, unprincipled, unpatriotic slobs who aren't passionately committed to the Constitution like you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, May 17, 2007

"The other side (i.e., Republicans) will retake Congress in 2008, and will also either get a Republican president, too, or will impeach the Democratic president...."

To say impeachment is a guarantee in future politics has no precedent. Sure, impeachment occurred with the last president. But the one before that? No. Before that? No. Before that? No. Yet for each of those presidencies, there were some out there calling for their heads with impeachment. So basically, impeachment has been called for by opponents of every president in the history of this country.

Which then begs the question: in which cases shall impeachment be exercised by Congress? Clearly, it has not been used by each and every Congress yet. So why should we think that if we impeach Bush today, it would have negative side effects? There is no precedent for it. Your anti-impeachment theory basically removes a constitutional check despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing.

Impeachment is more than warranted here. To say Bush had no intent is like dismissing insurance fraud because an adjustor, a lawyer, and a victim colluded to say that an accident was legitimate and warrants payout.

Impeachment need not be taken off the table based on future predictions rooted in fear. It is to be used when the president violated the law.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:39 PM, May 17, 2007

First, every President has violated the law in one way or another. Surely you would admit that. So, let's go back and impeach them all.

Second, yes, I do believe what is happening here is a cycle of "you impeached ours so we're impeaching yours."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:57 PM, May 17, 2007

"every President has violated the law in one way or another"

It's true. Rutherford Hayes was a habitual jaywalker.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:56 PM, May 18, 2007

Nice try on the belittling sarcasm.

I'll just start with 1960 onward. Kennedy knowingly risked the incineration of millions and millions of Americans in his game of chicken with Kruschev over nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fortunately, he won. But still. He also escalated a "police action" (i.e., war) in Vietnam without Congressional approval. He was also sleeping around in the White House. Put those together and it's worse than Clinton ever did. Should Kennedy have been impeached?

Johnson further escalated the war in Vietnam, even before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Illegal. Should he have been impeached?

Reagan conducted an illegal war in Nicaragua and traded arms for hostages. Illegal. Should he have been impeached?

Shall I go on?

By the logic of: we believe he broke a law, therefore he should be impeached, I say again: every President would be subject to impeachment.

What's going on here is that people are making personal decisions on just how "badly" Bush broke the law. In your opinion, his breakage is subjectively worse than Kennedy's, Johnson's, and Clinton's. Therefore he should be impeached, but the others shouldn't have been.

That's not fair. If breaking the law or violating the Constitution (allegedly, anyway) automatically qualifies forimpeachment, then it applies to every President -- not just the current one you whom you "really don't like."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:40 PM, May 18, 2007

Move on - impeachment is a waste of time and money!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:30 PM, May 18, 2007

violating the Constitution is not an impeachable offense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:24 PM, May 18, 2007

There's an important impeachment vote already scheduled for 2008. It's called an election.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:38 PM, May 18, 2007

Here, Here!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 PM, May 19, 2007

Yeah. And hopefully, for once, Vermonters will remember who sold the Bush team and its bad bill of goods to the State (twice). None other than Gov. Doesless!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:22 AM, May 21, 2007

Dude, both Peter Clavelle (2004)and Scudder Parker (2006) tried to run against "Governor Bush" and the electorate saw through it and trounced them. This is Vermont, not Washington. Douglas is not Bush. Any attempt to run against "Governor Bush" will backfire again, just as it already has twice.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:49 PM, May 21, 2007

Just run Peter Shumlin - he will trounce Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:54 AM, May 22, 2007

Dude (cowabunga!):

Maybe if whoever runs against Doesless would begin pointing out the wicked parallels between the Bush Admin and the Doesless Admin, something might begin to stick. Vermonters are naive, but they're not that naive.

Some of the parallels:

1) Fighting hard against having to divulge documents to the public;
2) Resisting the global warming argument;
3) Protecting big energy;
4) Refusing to denounce tax cuts for the wealthy;
5) Stripping communities of local control through caps on education taxes;
6) Dispensing his hacks to try and cut deals and/or intimidate legislators on key votes;
7) Replacing high-level political appointments like it's some kind of yearly exercise, leading to a total lack of policy continuity;
8) Working hard to privatize Vermont to appease his campaign contributors;
9)Pointing fingers at Democrats for introducing new ideas, while refusing to introduce any of his own;

That's just a few Dude. Let's hope that "seeing through" the obvious doesn't blind one to reality.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 AM, May 22, 2007

Dude: Wow, privitization, like in REAL JOBS? What a novel concept for Vermont! Maybe we could even teach liberals how to use an alarm clock.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:50 AM, May 22, 2007

Are you saying that Symington and Shumlin are not moving the state forward? Whoa!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:05 PM, May 22, 2007

Why isn't Douglas able to attract any new REAL jobs to Vermont? Can't all be the Dems fault.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:11 PM, May 22, 2007

Let's see . . .

1) Fighting hard against having to divulge documents to the public;

The Legislature fought its own battle against public disclosure last year. Or did you forget that?

2) Resisting the global warming argument;

I don't believe Douglas has ever said he didn't believe in global warming. However, right now he correctly doesn't believe that one company should foot the bill for the entire state's anti-global warming program. He's right.

3) Protecting big energy;

What does "protecting big energy" mean. Who's "big energy" and what has he "protected" them from? We only have one major power producer in this state. You're just throwing around opposition "talking points" here. Think for yourself.

4) Refusing to denounce tax cuts for the wealthy;

I didn't know that the Governor's job was to go around "denouncing" things just because you don't like them. Refusing to "denounce" tax cuts? Why, pray tell, should the Governor of Vermont "denounce" tax cuts done by a different level of government? That's not his job. His job is to run the state, not to "denounce" things.

5) Stripping communities of local control through caps on education taxes;

The Democratically-controlled Legislature just passed an education cap program far more draconian than the cap that Douglas proposed. It wasn't Douglas' idea and it goes much, much further. (And I'm happy about it.) But you can't call the kettle black on this one. Don't like caps? Talk to Symington and Shumlin, not Douglas.

6) Dispensing his hacks to try and cut deals and/or intimidate legislators on key votes;

I won't comment on this one, except to say that I find Shumlin to be the biggest deal-making, intimidating, unprincipled "hack" currently working in state government. And the reason his slam-Vt.-Yankee tax got as many votes as it did (even though it didn't even get all the Democrats)is because he twisted arms. Is that different from what Lunderville did?

7) Replacing high-level political appointments like it's some kind of yearly exercise, leading to a total lack of policy continuity;

What business is this of yours? And have yo done a study to see how Douglas compared to Kunin or Snelling on this? What significant policies in the Douglas administration have lacked continuity because of changes in cabinet members? I think this is more talking points stuff.

8) Working hard to privatize Vermont to appease his campaign contributors;

This one appears to be divorced from reality. What do you mean "privatize" Vermont? I didn't know we had a state-run economy in the first place? What did I miss? Can you please tell me what state-owned business Douglas privatized?

9)Pointing fingers at Democrats for introducing new ideas, while refusing to introduce any of his own;

I agree he hasn't introduced a lot of new ideas. I'll only say that "introducing new ideas" is not an end in itself. The ideas have to be worth it. What were Dean's big ideas in his entire ten years as Governor? The two big things in his entire ten years were Act 60 and civil unions, and BOTH of those were forced on the state by the Court, toward the end of his tenure. Governor Dean did one thing -- run the state on a balanced budget. Other than that, he did nothing (he even signed the civil unions bill privately and quietly). Little of what the Democratically-controlled Legislature has come up in the last several years are GOOD ideas and so much time has been wasted. Remember the bill to prevent the trimming of dogs' ears? Good one!

Here's an idea: focus on LOCAL issues. Stop pretending to be Congress or the U.N. Run a lean budget and lower my property taxes -- or at least hold the line for god's sakes. Stop coming up with ideas that require you to increase my taxes to pay for them.

As long as we have people running the Legislature who are pathologically driven to spend my money, I'm glad Douglas is there.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:16 PM, May 22, 2007

I don't know exactly how the various economic development program in the state work, so maybe Douglas can be faulted somewhat for lackluster performance in bringing new businesses to the state. But blaming Douglas can only go so far. The Legislature has stated loud and clear: we hate business! And if you make any money we're going to take it from you. Don't move here!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 PM, May 22, 2007

The Democrats rule so where are the results?????????????????

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:42 PM, May 22, 2007

Results?! What are you complaining about? We got higher property taxes! What more do you want?!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:51 PM, May 22, 2007

Thats right, I forgot, my bad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:29 AM, May 23, 2007

Good to see Douglas has his campaign '08 people monitoring these blog to do damage control.

Can't wait until Illuzzi runs against Douglas and sucks the NEK vote away from him. What a poser Douglas is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:27 AM, May 23, 2007

Good to see that Symington, Shumlin, & Ian Carleton have their spinmeisters monitoring this blog to try to make unfair statements about Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:52 AM, May 23, 2007

By the way, I am not a member of Douglas' campaign or even a member of his party. In fact, I am a member of the other party. But I do not appreciate seeing mindless, thoughtless, "talking points" stated about the Governor just because he's in the "other" party.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:17 PM, May 23, 2007

I am not a member of either party but I wish I saw something coming out of the Democratic Party that I could get excited about.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:20 AM, May 24, 2007

Me, too!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:27 PM, May 24, 2007