Kucinich Gets His Impeachment Hearing, Sorta

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:29:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Dennis Kucinich didn't get the impeachment hearing he wanted, but he did get a hearing on "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." That gave former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson the opportunity to tell Congress that

there's a "compelling case" for the impeachment of President Bush, but that short of that, it should appoint a special commission to investigate egregious abuses of power. Anderson, testifying Friday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing looking at the constitutional limits of the executive branch, detailed a litany of what he said were "heinous" human rights abuses, unprecedented power grabs and denials of due process.

Illness kept John Dean from testifying, but in this article Dean compares President Bush's abuses of power to those of Richard Nixon.

< McCain's (Dis)Respectful Campaign | DNC Releases Photo of Participant Tote Bags >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Kucinich Gets His Impeachment Hearing, Sorta | 5 comments (5 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Hearing Was Interesting and ... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by santarita on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:56:46 PM EST

long overdue. I felt that Schwartz from the Brennan Center was the wisest on the panel with Bruce Fein coming in a close second. Schwartz made it clear that it might be too late to stage an impeachment so close to electing a new President. But he thought a Truth Commission, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, might provide an airing of the various issues and suggest good remedies. Fein, I think, was the one that suggested that Mukasey be hauled up on impeachment charges for failure to enforce contempt citations. He thought that could be done summarily with an abbreviated process since the factual issues are not disputed. Liz Holtzman made a good point in talking about how partisan the Nixin impeachment was when it began but the process itself brought about bi-partisanship. Vince Bugliosi was a wild man. I'd hate to have been opposing counsel in one of his cases.

Rep. Hank Johnson was pretty slick in getting Prof. Presser to acknowledge that if the factual allegations in Kucinich's articles were true, that at least opening up impeachment hearings would be appropriate.

Well, there's that word again: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Anne on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM EST

"egregious."

They can all say it, roll it off their silver tongues, and deliver it with the appropriately somber tone, but what's annoying the cr@p out of me is that by continuing to bandy it about without doing anything, they are framing the actions of Bush and members of his administration as not being egregious enough to merit any consequence. We have people like Sunstein, and more and more Republicans, taking the position that even undertaking a full-scale investigation will inhibit people from wanting to serve in the public sector - while at the same time others are practically begging Bush to issue mass pre-emptive pardons.

That this is the attitude that permeates the upper levels of government is a sure sign that we have lost it. We are setting precedents on executive power, and establishing conditions that are ripe for more abuse that will be significantly worse than what we have already seen, and there will be a point where, having failed to act now, there will be no acting later.

Those with courage and principle are going to be so beaten down and so demoralized by the self-interested, craven failure of their peers to do the right thing that they will slowly fade away, to be replaced by those who will only be in it for the power and the glory.

Makes me fearful about the America my children and grandchildren will be living in.

An Impeachment Inquiry is what is needed. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by arky on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:30:24 PM EST

Not a "commission," not a post-admin prosecution, or anything less than Impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings would prevent W from pardoning anyone involved in the "high crime or misdemeanor." It's prohibited by the Constitution.
Otherwise, w will pardon all his criminal cohorts and poof there goes any accountibility.

: If we could just (none / 0) (#4)
by weltec2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:15:15 PM EST

get Nancy out of that chair. Just about any method would be fine with me.

nonsense (none / 0) (#5)
by pluege on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:57:06 AM EST

but that short of that, it should appoint a special commission to investigate egregious abuses of power.

any investigation requires the cooperation (voluntary or forced) of the administration.

the bush regime has stonewalled every investigation Congress has attempted and will continue to do so.

under the Constitution, the administration is forced to cooperate with impeachment proceedings

impeachment proceedings are the ONLY path to the truth regarding bush regime criminality.

period.