Email from my Rep: Not yet prepared to support impeachment

[Beaverhausen]

I fired off an angry email to my congressman last week when Paul Johnson was beheaded basically yelling IMPEACH BUSH NOW! HOW MANY MORE AMERICANS HAVE TO DIE?

I just got a long reply email from Rep. Adam Schiff and it includes this paragraph:

I recognize your support for censuring or impeaching President Bush. The censure and impeachment of a President by Congress are matters of utmost gravity and I am not yet prepared to support such a step. Should firm evidence come to light that President Bush or other senior members of his administration are responsible for the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners or manipulated intelligence in making the case for war, I would consider supporting a significant response. At present, however, I think that the priority of the Congress should be rigorous investigations of the treatment of Iraqi prisoners and our intelligence reports.


Please help me frame my reply - of course including the importance of impeaching for a blow job but not for lying to take us to war.

[eyesroll]

1. The reply you got was far better than the one we got from Sensenbrenner

He was one of the impeachment managers.

The response was along the lines of "Bush is honorable, but the Clenis must pay!" Very condescending, too.

[sdfernando]

2. Find out his record on impeachment

Was he serving when Clinton was impeached and how did he vote if he was? You should remind him in case he forgot.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. He was elected in 2000 n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. "Blow jobs are evil. Oral abortions!"

Or some sort of fundagelical nonsense of that sort.

:eyes:

[Booster]

4. Ask him if he's ever had one......eom

[Raster]

6. ask him if he's ever GIVEN one....

heh heh heh

[LittleApple81]

8. Oral abortions? eeeewwwww...eeeewwww. n/t

[salin]

5. How did he vote per Clinton?

If he was against the Clinton action - it could be that his point here is consistency... wait until there is clear evidence, not just very strong implication... so it doesn't a) just look like a tit for tat in retaliation for Clinton that b) becomes routine during every single future presidency. With evidence of those areas (responsibility for breaking the Geneva Convention, and intentional manipulation of Intel for Iraq) - which I think exists - but hasn't come to the Hill in the smoking gun form, yet... then it is such a clear case that it isn't continuing a witchhunt type precedent (of impeachment hearings for very future president.)

If I were to read this, however, from one who supported the Clinton Impeachment - I would be outraged as hell.

[Beaverhausen]

7. He was first elected in 2000...

...so no impeachment vote record.

His record is generally pretty good but he did vote yes on the war resolution...as did most of them.

I just can't believe he doesn't think there is enough evidence yet.

[salin]

9. I think it is the difference of implication

vs hard solid evidence. Did you raise the specific two issues he mentions in your email? If not, the fact that he raised both as points meriting action if there is hard evidence, suggests that he is viewing the admin and their actions with a skeptical eye. There is also little that democrats can do per investigations to get said evidence, unless there were in control of at least one House of Congress. Sad, but they are really shut down/out.

[MrBenchley]

10. Ask him

if the seriousness of the charges does not at least warrant a special counsel to investigate...and point to AshKKKroft stonewalling the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.