Bernie Sanders won't submit articles of Impeachment for towns

[Armstead]

Five Vermont towns voted to support the impeachment of President Bush. However, Bernie Sanders has decided not to follow their request to submit articles of Impeachment.


Is he being smart and pragmatic, or is this a mistake? Is he being overly cautious because he's running for Senate, or is it smart to avoid this so he doesn't get sandbagged by the GOP?

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/document.asp?issueNum=4810

3/8/2006, Statement of Congressman Sanders regarding:
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BERNIE SANDERS REGARDING IMPEACHMENT VOTE IN FIVE TOWNS


I can very well understand why the citizens of Newfane, Putney, Dummerston, Marlboro, and Brookfield voted yesterday to support the impeachment of President Bush and ask me, as Vermont’s Congressman, to introduce those articles.

It is my view that President Bush’s Administration has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well have been illegal.

The difficulty that we face is that with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate and serving as a virtual rubber stamp for the White House, Congressional leaders have consistently refused to even hold serious hearings or investigations on any of Bush’s abuses of power or misguided decisions.

Given that reality it would be impractical to talk about impeachment. For those people who are outraged by the conduct of the Bush Administration, who want serious investigations of what they have done, and who want to see the United States move in a new direction, it’s my view that all of our energy must go into the November elections with the goal of ending Republican control of the House and Senate.

[stepnw1f]

1. He Also Wouldn't Talk about Voting Irregularities

and the suspicion that there may have been fraud. This is the only thing I am dissapointed in about Bernie.

[Armstead]

7. I admit to mixed feelings about this

Bernie is not a timid Democrat type.

In this case, if he were to actually be the one to submit articles of Impeachment into the House, it would be a really big deal. He's probably right to avoid that distraction, which could be harmful to his Senate campaign.

(Part of me even wonders if some of those who voted for this were deliberatly trying to embarss him. But I'll leave my tin hat off.)

But on the otehr hand, I hope he's not turning into a typical overcautious politiian.

[stepnw1f]

12. You and I Both Have the Exact Concerns

He's still a heck of a guy, and one of the best.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. I'm very surprised

[quiet.american]

2. I don't know the answer, but....

If the shoe were on a Republican congressman's foot, say, to impeach Clinton, would they hesitate under the same circumstances? We all know the answer.

I'm aware Rep. Sanders is an independent, but this logic is indicative, too, of what has become of the opposition (Democratic) party.

[Laelth]

16. They did hesitate.

After the 1996 elections, all talk of bringing charges against Clinton ended because the Dems. took control of the Senate. That's why Clinton wasn't removed from office. Bernie is right. No hope of removing Bush while the Repukes control Congress.

-Laelth

[quiet.american]

21. Clinton was impeached *and* not removed from office.

David Brock, formerly a poster child of wingnut extremity, outlines in his book Blinded by the Right just how unhesitant the Republican Congress was to bang the drum for Clinton's impeachment.

[Laelth]

25. Yes, he was impeached.

That was before the 1996 election. But he was never tried, and he was not removed from office. That's because Dems. re-took control of the Senate in 1996. As I said, Bernie is right. It is pointless to bring articles of impeachment while the Repukes control Congress.

-Laelth

[quiet.american]

29. Your dates are not correct.

Clinton was impeached in 1998. The impeachment trial was held in 1999. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

[Laelth]

31. You're right, of course.

1996 Clinton won re-election. It was in 1998 that Dems. re-took control of the Senate. But my point stands. R's felt they had the power to bring the impeachment and did impeach Clinton when they controlled the House and the Senate, but after they lost the Senate the impeachment trial was a foregone conclusion, and Clinton was not removed from office.

Are you suggesting that the R's continued to attempt to remove Clinton from office even after the Dems. controlled the Senate? My recollection of those events is that all thought of Clinton being removed from office faded away after the Dems. re-took control of the Senate.

Am I wrong about that?

-Laelth

[quiet.american]

36. I may be suggesting just that. :)

It's my presumption the House Republicans never lost their bloodlust to force out Clinton, (the right-wing echo chamber certainly never wasted any time crying in their beer) but what could they do now? They'd done their best and lost. They'd gotten an impeachment and trial and the matter was settled as a matter of Constitutional law. Truly, they had no other legal means to force Clinton out. (Thank goodness.)

Add to that, the hypocrisy of the "conservative" leadership rising up to bite them in the behind, sending their entire mis-guided movement into disarray as their own philandering and worse was exposed to daylight. Ah, the good old days....

[cali]

28. Vermonter here

We had town meeting on Tuesday. There's something over 200 towns in the state. 5 voted to ask Bernie to draw up articles of Impeachment. The rest didn't Bernie represents the entire state. 'nuff said.

His decision not to do as asked by the 5 towns has nothing to do with being cowed by the repukes. I know bernie and I'm confident his decision comes out of wisdom not cowardice.

[quiet.american]

30. Okay, that makes sense. n/t

[benburch]

3. He is right not to.

If the VT State government passes a resolution, then he might feel obligated.

But you HAVE to understand that right now, impeachment is an un-winnable fight, and Bernie Sanders has a WINNABLE Senate race. Which do you think he ought to pay most attention to?

[9119495]

4. Does he have a shot at the senate? Who will get his house seat?

[Armstead]

9. So far he seems to have a clear shot at the Senate

In Vermont, there is only one Congressman, so in an electoral sense, Bernie hs already been the equivalent of a Third Senator, who regularly wins statewide by a very wide margin.

[mrgorth]

5. He probably wants to live.

[petgoat]

6. Obviously initiating impeachment proceedings in a

Republican-controlled Congress is counter-productive, so delaying until the Dems (presumably) take
control of Congress in November is only prudent.

Even so, it's silly to say that it's "impractical to talk about impeachment" now. What's impractical
about making plans for next year?

[Armstead]

11. I think he might have ben speaking "between the lines" there

It's possible to interpret his statement as "Throw the GOP bums out in the election, and then we can talk about impeachment."

[KoKo]

18. You can't start Impeachment Hearings without having a "Resolution of

Inquiry." John Conyers is working on getting enough signatures to get the FIRST STEP going. You can't just have a bunch of House members running around yelling Impeach...no matter how many States vote to impeach without going through the proper procedures.

See my post below about this from the Nation Panel on C-Span on Impeachment.

[bluerum]

8. Wait - line up support - get a majority - then shove it through. eom

[MrBenchley]

10. Guess it's Bernie's turn in the barrel today (snicker)

[SaveElmer]

13. Will the long knives come out?

Or with the people here who say they can't support anyone who refuses to support impeachment look the other way this time?

[MrBenchley]

22. None are pure enough to stand with thee and me (snicker)

For an interesting comparison.....

Wonder if Bernie will be called a "lameass", "gutless wonder", "useless, spineless, posturing, fingerintheair asswipe", part of the "Elite Ruling Class who are there to protect the status quo of fascism", a "Pro-War Monger", "stupid, irresponsible", "worse than Tojo!...practically Adolf Eichmann to Bush's Milosevic", "another politician not willing to enforce the laws of the United States when it comes to the executive branch", "wimp", etc. etc. etc...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2489288

[SaveElmer]

23. Not holding my breath!!!...nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

37. Having fun snickering in the corner, boys?

People are being pragmatic, and you say it's wrong. If they had landed into Bernie, you'd say they wre just being "purists" and it'd be wrong....Nice little Catch 22 you've got there.

You can go back to your snickering now. :)

[MrBenchley]

38. I sure as shit AM having fun pointing out the double standard here....

Guess being pragmatic is only evil when a DEMOCRAT does it.

[Laelth]

14. Honesty and Pragmatism

It's a refreshing combination.

Once again I find myself envying the people of Vermont. They are well-represented.

:applause:

-Laelth

[KoKo]

15. Sanders is correct on this. John Conyers says the 1st Step has to be

a "Resolution of Inquiry" to be filed. He is still taking names for that. He said we CANNOT call for Impeachment no matter how much we want to unless the "first step" is completed.

He said this in the Panel discussion on Impeachment held by the "Nation" Mag which was shown on C-Span this weekend.

John Dean agreed. You can't just go out and present an Impeachment petition and expect action without following the House rules.

It's great that Vermonters did this...but it doesn't have any standing in the House at this point. So Sanders shouldn't be blamed.

[onenote]

39. If that's what Conyers said, he's not exactly right

The "first step" can be the introduction of a resolution of impeachment. Once that happens, then the next step would be a vote on whether there should be a inquiry. Of course, as long as the repubs control the House, any impeachment resolution would simply be referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it would disappear. In fact, resolutions calling for the impeachment of various officials, including Bush I and Rumsfeld, have been introduced over the years, but have simply died in committee.

on edit: I should make clear that I think Sanders' position is exactly right. No point in introducing the resolution just to have it disappear. At this point in time, energies and resources should be focuses on electing Democrats, not on impeachment.

onenote

[deutsey]

17. I'm in favor of impeachment. While Bernie's choice is disappointing,

I can see (and agree with) the logic of what he's saying. Right now, our energy should be in re-capturing Congress. Then we can actually have a chance at impeachment.

Just my opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

19. As an aisde, CNN had an interesting take on this.

When reporting this, they followed it by saying that Vermont is no friend to GWB as is home to Howard Dean and some of the more radical politics in the country.

Thanks CNN. Can't just report a story, can you? Just had to temper it with your 2-cents worth commentary.

Damn liberal media.

[Armstead]

35. CNN ought to visit the damn state before they say such things

Vermont is filled with conservatives of all stripes.

They just happen to vote for Bernie because they know what's in their best interests, unlike too many Red State CONNEDservatives.

[Botany]

20. Not the right time now ....

It would be counterproductive. Bernie knows that.

But, that time is coming and soon. I have a gut a feeling that the impeachment articles is
going to be submitted by a repug sometime this summer.

[WI_DEM]

24. He's just being sensible and pragmatic

since the GOP controls the house and senate it won't go anywhere.

[Greeby]

26. Bernie isn't on the Judiciary Committee

Little pointless asking him then, isn't it? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

27. You can't win elections if you avoid the issues.

Failing to demand that the Republicans hold investigative hearings is an avoidance of the issues. The failure of the GOP to uphold law and order should be an issue in this campaign.

[Strawman]

34. makes sense to me

There's nothing wrong with focus and tactical pragmatism. You will not get a legitimate inquiry into this administration by the current Congress.