r.whitlock
Washington State Capitol Building Rotunda
[cross posted: olyblog.net/february-5th-lobbying-impeachment-investigati...]
Yesterday, Tuesday the fifth of February, was the Washington for Impeachment Lobby Day. Fifteen or twenty citizens gathered at the Capitol Campus and spent a good portion of the day lobbying and talking to legislators and legislative aids about the importance of impeachment.
It started raining as soon as I left my house. It was windy. It was cold. I almost turned around and returned home. By the time I got to the Capitol Campus, I was considerably wet (though definitely not soaking, which was good.) I went into the cafeteria where I found my fellow impeachment advocates.
We split up into different groups and proceeded to the offices of the various legislators who have the power to make or break this effort in the Washington State legislature to call for impeachment investigations in the US Congress. There are two bills, sister bills, one each in the State Senate and House. In the House, HJM 4027 was co-sponsored by Representatives Chase, Hasegawa, Moeller and Dickerson. It is currently in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. Representative Sam Hunt chairs that committee. He is not interested in bringing the memorial to a vote. Word has it that Senator Patty Murray's office has been in contact with Representative Hunt and has lobbied to stifle the state level impeachment initiative. Apparently, Senator Murray has also sent word to the office of Representative Frank Chopp, who has also been influenced by the US Senator's position on impeachment.
In the Senate, SJM 8016 was passed out of its committee (Government Operations and Elections) of origin in the first week of the legislative session. It was co-sponsored by Senators Oemig, Regala, Kohl-Welles, Kline, Spanel, Fairley, Kauffman, Fraser, and Prentice. This bill is waiting to be "pulled" in the Senate Rules Committee. When a bill is "pulled," it means that it will be brought to the floor for reading before the full Senate.
Okay, so if none of this makes sense to you, and you don't know what is going on with impeachment as it relates to members of the Bush Administration, or the current environment in the US Congress, there is a very good summary article by former Representative (and House Judiciary Committee member during the Nixon impeachment proceedings) Elizabeth Holtzman. Here's an excerpt:
Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney.
There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.
Have Bush and Cheney done that?
Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.
...
Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.
Reactions from legislators, and their aids, were mixed. Some legislators were very supportive; they encouraged me and were agreeable. Most legislators (or their assistants) were polite and listened carefully (or seemed to) to my messages. Some of the legislators (or their assistants) however, were discourteous - even to the point of rudeness. For example, Representative Mark Miloscia, who sits on the House State Government and Tribal Affairs committee, was gracious enough to talk with me and my lobbying partner, Gail Johnson. However, once we entered his office, it was apparent that he was in a rush and seemed to be agitated as he organized papers on his desks. He apologized for not giving us his undivided attention. And it wouldn't have bothered me, except that he repeatedly cut us off and interrupted us in our conversation. He explained why he was personally opposed to impeachment. But he wouldn't listen to our rebuttals, or to the basic reasoning about why it is important that he lend his support and solidarity to a bi-partisan push for impeachment (in part simply because it is the right thing, and the necessary thing, to do). Representative Miloscia doesn't support HJM 4027 for two main reasons (as I understood them): 1) the memorial doesn't have the necessary support to pass (hm...maybe partly because of people like him?), and 2) he is concerned about the political viability and that it might bring harm to his re-electability, or to the electability of Democrats in general. Rep. Miloscia was worried that impeachment proceedings would have a cooling effect on the Democratic party.
Maybe he is right. In an article by Robert Parry, I noticed this passage:
On Dec. 20, 2007, Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now” that impeachment hearings could end up like Watergate in reverse, with today’s careerist press corps treating the notion of accountability for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney like some kind of nutty idea.
“There is a very stark reality that with the corporatization of the media, we could end up with turning people, who should be documented in history as making many profound errors and violating the Constitution, from villains into victims,” the Michigan Democrat said.
If that's true, then our nation has been hi-jacked by a "hostile Washington News Media."Scary!
If that is true then it gives reason for clarity, consistency, unity and solidarity on impeachment.
Rep. Miloscia compared a Bush/Cheney impeachment to the Clinton episodes. It is faulty to compare the impeachment of Clinton, which had a negative impact on the Republican Party, with a would-be impeachment of Bush/Cheney. First off, the Clinton impeachment was based on perjury over an extramarital affair. The Bush/Cheney impeachment, in stark contrast, would be about "high crimes and misdemeanors" (going to war based on false pretenses, etc.). As we were leaving Rep. Miloscia's office, he refused to accept literature in support of the Washington State Impeachment Investigation Memorials, shoving papers back into my hands. He said something to the effect of, I'll throw these in the trash so you might as well take them back with you. At which point we were brusquely swept from his office. I appreciated the Representative taking the time to meet with us. This is an ultimately grave issue. It certainly deserves more than a casual display of attentiveness. After all, the President and Vice President, et al. drove this nation to war based on false pretenses! Thousands of American Service Personnel have suffered casualties. Millions of Iraqi people are suffering. The invasion was an act of aggression.
The Clinton impeachment was partisan politics. It was purely political. Holding investigations into impeachable offenses by members of the Bush Administration is not a partisan issue. It is not "political" in the partisan sense. Investigating members of the Bush Administration for criminal activity is a matter of holding our officials accountable to the rule of law. It is not okay for a President, his staff, or associated interests to break the law.
At one point, the legislative aid for Senate Rules Committee Member Senator Tracy Eide refused to receive literature and notes relating to support for impeachment investigations. I witnessed the legislative assistant treating a group of supporters in a hostile manner.
I also heard a story from some of the other lobbyists, who said that they met Senator Lisa Brown in a hallway. She said she wouldn't support SJM 8016 because there weren't enough votes. I assume she meant both in the State and in D.C. - but I'm not sure. Word of mouth has it that she also said she would not support SJM 8016 even if there were enough votes for it to pass. go figure (the Murray effect again?) I tried to meet with Senator Brown or her legislative aid, but I was not allowed to get near her office. Instead, three staffers kept me an my fellow lobbyists outside in the main hallway, where we were given notepads to write messages.
One response to my efforts was: This isn't the first time a President has broken the rules like this and gotten away with it. Why do you want do something about it now? To which I respond: I want something done about this so that a President won't break the rules like this again.
At one point a group of about a dozen of us were huddled up and re-grouping in the hallway in a legislative building. Senator Eric Oemig happened to walk by, so we stopped him for a few minutes to thank him for his courageous leadership on this issue. He had some good advice and information. He said that the best things we can do to support impeachment are to: 1) keep applying positive pressure and offering gratitude to those legislators who are already in support of the memorials, and 2) to regularly attend the Senate Rules Committee meetings in order to encourage "pulling" the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He said that if we can pack the Rules Committee Meetings, and communicate our cause (by wearing all black clothing, or orange t-shirts, for example), that that would be powerful.
You can also call or email legislators on the Rules Committee to formally request "pulling." Positive encouragement seems like the right thing to do. If we offer support to our state legislators, perhaps they will take action to support this memorial for impeachment investigations, and in turn offer their support to our national officials.
It is up to us to hold our elected officials accountable to the rule of law. In the face of overwhelming, substantial, specific and credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is good reason to immediately commence upon impartial and unbiased investigations.
We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Please visit Washington for Impeachment for more information.
[cross posted: olyblog.net/february-5th-lobbying-impeachment-investigati...]
I also want to add that holding elected officials accountable to the rule of law is a public interest issue. It is common sense and in the common interest to make sure that members of the Bush Administration receive appropriate consequences for any violations of the public trust.
Washington State Capitol Building Rotunda
[cross posted: olyblog.net/february-5th-lobbying-impeachment-investigati...]
Yesterday, Tuesday the fifth of February, was the Washington for Impeachment Lobby Day. Fifteen or twenty citizens gathered at the Capitol Campus and spent a good portion of the day lobbying and talking to legislators and legislative aids about the importance of impeachment.
It started raining as soon as I left my house. It was windy. It was cold. I almost turned around and returned home. By the time I got to the Capitol Campus, I was considerably wet (though definitely not soaking, which was good.) I went into the cafeteria where I found my fellow impeachment advocates.
We split up into different groups and proceeded to the offices of the various legislators who have the power to make or break this effort in the Washington State legislature to call for impeachment investigations in the US Congress. There are two bills, sister bills, one each in the State Senate and House. In the House, HJM 4027 was co-sponsored by Representatives Chase, Hasegawa, Moeller and Dickerson. It is currently in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. Representative Sam Hunt chairs that committee. He is not interested in bringing the memorial to a vote. Word has it that Senator Patty Murray's office has been in contact with Representative Hunt and has lobbied to stifle the state level impeachment initiative. Apparently, Senator Murray has also sent word to the office of Representative Frank Chopp, who has also been influenced by the US Senator's position on impeachment.
In the Senate, SJM 8016 was passed out of its committee (Government Operations and Elections) of origin in the first week of the legislative session. It was co-sponsored by Senators Oemig, Regala, Kohl-Welles, Kline, Spanel, Fairley, Kauffman, Fraser, and Prentice. This bill is waiting to be "pulled" in the Senate Rules Committee. When a bill is "pulled," it means that it will be brought to the floor for reading before the full Senate.
Okay, so if none of this makes sense to you, and you don't know what is going on with impeachment as it relates to members of the Bush Administration, or the current environment in the US Congress, there is a very good summary article by former Representative (and House Judiciary Committee member during the Nixon impeachment proceedings) Elizabeth Holtzman. Here's an excerpt:
Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney.
There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.
Have Bush and Cheney done that?
Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.
...
Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.
Reactions from legislators, and their aids, were mixed. Some legislators were very supportive; they encouraged me and were agreeable. Most legislators (or their assistants) were polite and listened carefully (or seemed to) to my messages. Some of the legislators (or their assistants) however, were discourteous - even to the point of rudeness. For example, Representative Mark Miloscia, who sits on the House State Government and Tribal Affairs committee, was gracious enough to talk with me and my lobbying partner, Gail Johnson. However, once we entered his office, it was apparent that he was in a rush and seemed to be agitated as he organized papers on his desks. He apologized for not giving us his undivided attention. And it wouldn't have bothered me, except that he repeatedly cut us off and interrupted us in our conversation. He explained why he was personally opposed to impeachment. But he wouldn't listen to our rebuttals, or to the basic reasoning about why it is important that he lend his support and solidarity to a bi-partisan push for impeachment (in part simply because it is the right thing, and the necessary thing, to do). Representative Miloscia doesn't support HJM 4027 for two main reasons (as I understood them): 1) the memorial doesn't have the necessary support to pass (hm...maybe partly because of people like him?), and 2) he is concerned about the political viability and that it might bring harm to his re-electability, or to the electability of Democrats in general. Rep. Miloscia was worried that impeachment proceedings would have a cooling effect on the Democratic party.
Maybe he is right. In an article by Robert Parry, I noticed this passage:
On Dec. 20, 2007, Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now” that impeachment hearings could end up like Watergate in reverse, with today’s careerist press corps treating the notion of accountability for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney like some kind of nutty idea.
“There is a very stark reality that with the corporatization of the media, we could end up with turning people, who should be documented in history as making many profound errors and violating the Constitution, from villains into victims,” the Michigan Democrat said.
If that's true, then our nation has been hi-jacked by a "hostile Washington News Media."Scary!
If that is true then it gives reason for clarity, consistency, unity and solidarity on impeachment.
Rep. Miloscia compared a Bush/Cheney impeachment to the Clinton episodes. It is faulty to compare the impeachment of Clinton, which had a negative impact on the Republican Party, with a would-be impeachment of Bush/Cheney. First off, the Clinton impeachment was based on perjury over an extramarital affair. The Bush/Cheney impeachment, in stark contrast, would be about "high crimes and misdemeanors" (going to war based on false pretenses, etc.). As we were leaving Rep. Miloscia's office, he refused to accept literature in support of the Washington State Impeachment Investigation Memorials, shoving papers back into my hands. He said something to the effect of, I'll throw these in the trash so you might as well take them back with you. At which point we were brusquely swept from his office. I appreciated the Representative taking the time to meet with us. This is an ultimately grave issue. It certainly deserves more than a casual display of attentiveness. After all, the President and Vice President, et al. drove this nation to war based on false pretenses! Thousands of American Service Personnel have suffered casualties. Millions of Iraqi people are suffering. The invasion was an act of aggression.
The Clinton impeachment was partisan politics. It was purely political. Holding investigations into impeachable offenses by members of the Bush Administration is not a partisan issue. It is not "political" in the partisan sense. Investigating members of the Bush Administration for criminal activity is a matter of holding our officials accountable to the rule of law. It is not okay for a President, his staff, or associated interests to break the law.
At one point, the legislative aid for Senate Rules Committee Member Senator Tracy Eide refused to receive literature and notes relating to support for impeachment investigations. I witnessed the legislative assistant treating a group of supporters in a hostile manner.
I also heard a story from some of the other lobbyists, who said that they met Senator Lisa Brown in a hallway. She said she wouldn't support SJM 8016 because there weren't enough votes. I assume she meant both in the State and in D.C. - but I'm not sure. Word of mouth has it that she also said she would not support SJM 8016 even if there were enough votes for it to pass. go figure (the Murray effect again?) I tried to meet with Senator Brown or her legislative aid, but I was not allowed to get near her office. Instead, three staffers kept me an my fellow lobbyists outside in the main hallway, where we were given notepads to write messages.
One response to my efforts was: This isn't the first time a President has broken the rules like this and gotten away with it. Why do you want do something about it now? To which I respond: I want something done about this so that a President won't break the rules like this again.
At one point a group of about a dozen of us were huddled up and re-grouping in the hallway in a legislative building. Senator Eric Oemig happened to walk by, so we stopped him for a few minutes to thank him for his courageous leadership on this issue. He had some good advice and information. He said that the best things we can do to support impeachment are to: 1) keep applying positive pressure and offering gratitude to those legislators who are already in support of the memorials, and 2) to regularly attend the Senate Rules Committee meetings in order to encourage "pulling" the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He said that if we can pack the Rules Committee Meetings, and communicate our cause (by wearing all black clothing, or orange t-shirts, for example), that that would be powerful.
You can also call or email legislators on the Rules Committee to formally request "pulling." Positive encouragement seems like the right thing to do. If we offer support to our state legislators, perhaps they will take action to support this memorial for impeachment investigations, and in turn offer their support to our national officials.
It is up to us to hold our elected officials accountable to the rule of law. In the face of overwhelming, substantial, specific and credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is good reason to immediately commence upon impartial and unbiased investigations.
We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Please visit Washington for Impeachment for more information.
[cross posted: olyblog.net/february-5th-lobbying-impeachment-investigati...]
I also want to add that holding elected officials accountable to the rule of law is a public interest issue. It is common sense and in the common interest to make sure that members of the Bush Administration receive appropriate consequences for any violations of the public trust.