Kucinich Says He's Preparing 50-Page Bush Articles of Impeachment

[davidswanson]

"On the way over here, I was reading a 50-page document that relates to Articles of Impeachment for the President of the United States," Kucinich said to a standing ovation. "And I want you to know that I'm actually preparing this document for submission to the House."

http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29305

Kucinich addresses many issues at Reno rally
James Ball ([e-mail]), RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

Touching on issues ranging from Yucca Mountain to the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich spoke to a crowd of several hundred people in Reno Saturday.

Despite a steady snowfall outside, a standing-room-only crowd packed into two meeting rooms at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center to hear what the Ohio Congressman and Democrat had to say about issues he's most closely associated with: the environment and opposition to the war and the Bush administration in general. Those expecting Kucinich to deliver harsh words about the president weren't disappointed, as the half-hour campaign speech soon turned to talk of impeachment.

"On the way over here, I was reading a 50-page document that relates to Articles of Impeachment for the President of the United States," Kucinich said to a standing ovation. "And I want you to know that I'm actually preparing this document for submission to the House."

Kucinich said under the current administration, citizen's rights to due process and fair trial are in jeopardy.

"This is a moment when we're called upon to reclaim our country," he said. "You give me your vote, I'll give you back your country."

Kucinich also discussed how his concern for the environment would shape his presidency if he were to be elected.

"Think about this. The government has an engine of sustainability so that the Department of Transportation focuses on developing mass transit solutions. The Department of Housing and Urban Development develops green housing with natural light and passive solar. The Department of Energy incentivizes the production of wind and solar and green energy," he told the crowd.

But most of those on hand weren't there to hear about global warming.

Bill Cantella of Reno made his way throughout the crowd, handing out Kucinich pamphlets and stickers simply reading "Impeach," while others wore shirts and held banners bearing the same sentiment.

Cantella said Kucinich's "everyman" appeal draws him to the candidate.

"The most appealing thing about him to me is that he's not connected with special interests, international corporations and he does not accept campaign contributions from corporations or PACs." Cantella said. "He's not connected to the military industrial complex, oil companies and health insurance companies that rule our lives."

He was quick, however, to point out that shunning such donations could, in fact, hurt Kucinich's chances in a race populated by high-profile candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side.

"That's probably his biggest problem," Cantella said. "Because you have to have a lot of money to win the presidency of the United States. "

Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth, who was raised in England, spoke about the perception that her husband traditionally has been seen as a fringe, extremist candidate.

"There's a kind of thought police in Washington that tells the people of the United States that they're on the fringe but they're not," she said. "Dennis really stands with the people of America right squarely on the issues. It's the other candidates on the fringe that actually pose themselves as mainstream."

After the speech was presumably over, Kucinich jumped back on stage to get in one more thought; this one on Yucca Mountain.

"Under President Kucinich, Yucca Mountain is dead," he said.

[demnan]

1. Maybe he should introduce articles to impeach Nancy Pelosi

because she is firmly standing in the way at this point.

Perhaps for not fulfilling her constitutional duty to impeach the lawless executives in this country.

She swore an oath and she is defying it.

David, I think Denny should start personally attacking Nancy Pelosi, if that's what it takes.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Kucinich knows his place and knows better then to attack Pelosi

He has primary challengers next spring and knows better than to make powerful enemies in the Democratic Party.

[Occam Bandage]

7. You can't impeach a Representative.

[L. Coyote]

12. Ridiculous. For what crime? There is none. Your post is BULLSHIT!

Pelosi is not defying her oath. What an incredibly false accusation.

That is simply a shameless LIE. Bush is not alone in the Liar Party. The Rovian Echo Chamber is full of them.

[Zorra]

2. Impeachment is a great idea. It's the one thing Congress can't get vetoed

by Bu*h.

[Occam Bandage]

9. It requires a 2/3 majority to convict in the Senate.

Which Republicans will cross party lines to hand their party the biggest political defeat in American history?

[Zorra]

14. It is the blatant public exposition of Bu*h/Cheney crimes that is important,

not the conviction.

An impeachment trial would put the proof of Bu*h/Cheney crimes in everybody's living room on a daily basis.

Besides that, impeaching Bu*h/Cheney is Congress's job.

Bu*h/Cheney are criminals.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Everyone's already aware of his crimes. At this point, either you hate him or you never will.

It's often difficult for Democrats to grasp, but simply "raising awareness" of an issue is fundamentally useless.

[Zorra]

16. You mean, like Watergate? There is a big difference between merely

"raising awareness" of an issue and exposing criminal acts committed by the occupant of the WH on public television on a daily basis.

If Bu*h and Cheney are exposed under a microscope, there will be a Democratic landslide in Nov '08.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Which criminal acts do you believe will be "exposed" to a greater degree?

If more incriminating evidence existed (and has not been destroyed or locked away), the Democrats would have already obtained it and publicized it. What crimes would be exposed?

[Zorra]

20. Here ya go, (although this is just the tip of the iceberg):

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int2.pdf

[Occam Bandage]

21. Which of those has not yet been exposed?

And among those, for which of those does new evidence exist?

[Zorra]

25. 1/7/07: "Half of Americans Link Hussein and al-Qaeda"

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14319

7/29/06: "Half of Americans Believe Hussein Had WMD"

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12681

The bottom line here is this: If Congress conducts a serious impeachment investigation, Americans are going to be forced into admitting to the facts. It will be impossible for the MSM to spin the facts and confuse the US populace on these issues. Even Pox News, which up to now has done a masterful job of keeping a large but gullible segment of the population misinformed, will not be able to spin lies fast enough to cover-up the truth of a televised impeachment trial.

I'm not sure what new evidence exists, but obviously, a substantial segment of the populace has yet to get the straight facts on the old evidence.

And the old evidence is certainly enough to all but guarantee a Dem landslide in 2008.

[Occam Bandage]

26. And you really think:

1. People will tune in and watch. The population's too lazy to get their facts right? What makes you think that's gonna change because we impeach?

2. People will be able to follow the minutiae of the case. This is the Plame leak alone:


That does not cover the rest of the Plame Affair, which also encompasses the Sixteen Words, Niger, Yellowcake, Joseph Wilson, the Novak op-ed backlash, the countless Republican counter-accusations, and the Iraq push to war. The Plame Affair alone is enough to confuse most people. And every other scandal is just as complex. You think people are going to follow it all, and have any energy left to give a fuck?

3. The Republicans will stop spinning. Frankly, the more information there is out there, the easier it is to spin. You say "they won't spin lies fast enough," but that's not the way things work. The more that's out there, the harder it is for the public to keep track of what's there. The harder a time the public is having following a situation, the easier it is for them to accept a simple lie. Given the success Republicans have had getting Americans to believe lies about such simple issues as "were WMD in Iraq," what makes you think that they'll have less success here?

Just like with every scandal they've been caught in, they'll be able to muddy the waters enough to prevent there from being an outcry forcing them into action.

[Zorra]

28. Given the presentation of the Watergate scandal and the Clinton

impeachment, yes, I believe that people will follow an impeachment trial and the scandal it creates with an almost religious fervor.

The republicans simply won't be able to spin anything of this magnitude.

And the outing of a CIA agent, while a very serious issue, pales in magnitude against the scandal that will be created when one of the most despised personalities in the history of the world is put on trial.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Follow it? Yes, as a spectacle. And when you have a spectacle, spin is everything.

You dangerously underestimate our opponents. "They can't possibly spin that" has been proven repeatedly to be false.

I posted the Plame leak diagram not to claim seriousness, but rather to demonstrate the complexity of Bush, inc.'s crimes. In order to leave no room for the GOP to spin that issue, people would have to fully understand every single one of those arrows. And frankly, the Plame leak is the one scandal that we know the most about. We simply don't have all the arrows for his biggest crimes, and we never will, since they've destroyed the source documents. There will always be irreducible complexity and grey areas, and that is where spin works best.

[rudy23]

17. I disagree, most people I talk to, even Dems, are unaware

And for some reason, most people still don't believe something is important until it's on the network news, or the front page of their paper. So what's known on the blogosphere isn't common knowledge to most people.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Depends on what exactly you're referring to.

If you're referring to speculative conspiracy theories, well, those aren't coming out. If you refer to things he's obviously done but for which there's no solid evidence, well, those aren't coming out either; they've destroyed almost all the records. In fact, impeachment might actually help his case, as they'll turn the disinformation machine on full-bore defense mode (for an example of what that would look like, take the recent Pelosi story) and confuse the hell out of America.

As it stands, he's being judged by the court of public opinion. You impeach him, and suddenly, his supporters can start saying "innocent until proven guilty!" And once the Senate fails to convict, those cries will turn into "See! Told you he was innocent of wrongdoing!"

Impeachment is a no-win game.

[kenfrequed]

33. uhm

Waitaminute...

So we can't get him for destroying emails and obstructing justice? I mean destroying those records IS a crime carried out by the executive.

So because they will lie even more and spew more disinformation we shouldn't call them on it? There should be no justice because the repugs are going to have a tantrum. What? Fox is going to have to actually go on the defence?

Impeachment is a win-win. It makes the story of the day "the Crimes of Bush" vs "This is a political stunt." Which story do you think the American people will believe considering Bush's already low approval ratings.

Even if it doesn't work the tarry Bush-Brush can be used against any republican legislator that decides to vote against it.

I would also question this, if impeachment is a lose-lose than why would Biden bother threatening with it in the event of Iran invasion. THIS seems more like a stunt to me, or an empty threat.

[Occam Bandage]

39. If only it were that easy.

We don't know what was destroyed, who destroyed it, and what the legality of destroying it was. We don't know what we don't know, and we can't prosecute what we don't know. It's a black box. We have the general frameworks in place, yeah. But the specifics of the case is hidden to us. We're still investigating in hopes of finding something we can go on, but realistically, we're not going to find anything that would hold up in a court.

When it comes to "spewing disinformation?" Yeah. Impeachment is a political process. We require a supermajority in the Senate to convict. The only way we'll get that is if there is enormous political pressure--as in convict-or-lose-your-seat-for-100%-certain-pressure. If the details of the case are such that the Republicans would be able to prevent there from being a public mandate, then we will not be able to convict, and thus impeachment will be a failure.

As for which story the American people will believe? Keep in mind their approval rating of Congress (both R and D) is even more pitiful. Americans know Bush is a criminal. They also believe Congress is a pack of political hacks. Americans will probably believe both: that Bush committed crimes, and that Congress is only in it for political gain. Given your "we can tarry them with a Bush brush!" reasoning, well, that would be an appropriate reaction.

[kenfrequed]

40. To elaborate

A: The process of impeachment is both presentation and investigation.

B: Witholding and/or destroying those communications, as well as creating a seperate series of accounts for communication and directives, is in complete contradiction with federal law. No question.

C: In your second paragraph you completely gloss over my statements about the nature of right wing propaganda and control of the news cycle. Do you think somehow the right wing smear machine doesn't work if we spend our time hiding out or not standing up to it? (more on this later)

D: The political pressure is in the mix and programmed in. The republicans put on a brave face, but Kucinich's last effort -the privelaged resolution was evidence that this is their big fear. The went along with it hoping to bully and scare the Democrats into dropping it and embarassing them.

E: Part 2-There is broad public support for impeaching one or both of the sitting executives. It does not have to be 100% I have talked. By pushing the issue we make Republican congressmen make difficult choices come election time while democrats can make easy ones. Democratic challengers to these seats can run the best kind of outsider/reform campaigns challenging corruption and cronyism and can run against a failed and miserable president embodied by a corrupte republican obstructionist.

F: You have bought Fox news spin about the approval ratings of congress. It is a two parter at least. Hard core Repubs hate the Democrat control of congress. Democrats and Independents are disgusted with Congress' inability or unwillingess to fight Bush harder. You cannot raise both numbers by being neutral. Hell, anyone that believes that there is anything you can do that would increase both Democratic and Republican opinions of congress at the same time is probably indulging in illicit substances.

But since we are democrats and independents I know of one way to garauntee their aproval ratings of congress and that is to resist administration.

[Occam Bandage]

41. I'll focus on the issue of Congress first.

You oversimplify. You are correct that "Repubs hate Democrat control of Congress." You are correct that hard-core Democrats are disgusted with Congress' inability to fight Bush harder. But you drank the Kool-aid when you started going on about indies. The majority of Americans believe Bush has committed impeachable crimes, but the majority of Americans also believe Bush should not be impeached. Indies want to see things done. They don't want to see political games. And if the Republicans cast this as a political witch-hunt game (which should be easy to do, given how enormously complex and difficult to follow these proceedings will quickly become), then not only is the trial toast, our party's chance of winning '08 becomes toast as well.

There is not broad public support for impeachment. Support for impeachment is in the high 30s. Belief in impeachable crimes exists, but broad support for impeachment does not exist.

Withholding and destroying communications is illegal. The problem is that we don't know which communications were destroyed, which are withheld, and which even exist. We don't know the legality of the communications taken through informal channels. We know we're being rooked, but we don't know how. And we need to know how in order to have a case.

Talking about "standing up to the right-wing smear machine" is juvenile. They have a political machine, and so do we. They're often smarter about it than we are, and they're better at leading the debate. They're a fact of political life, and they're not something that we can avoid by hiding, by fighting, or by anything. I'm not saying we should avoid actions that would trigger them, because literally anything will trigger them. I'm saying that actions that require them to not exist in order to be successful, such as impeachment, are pointless.

[kenfrequed]

44. I respectfullly disagree

A legislative game was that all nighter pajama party the Dems pulled.

If you want an idea of what most moderates are about then I have to tell you they are about the facts. They like things solid and clear. An impeachment might seem meaningless if you look at it from a political handicapping sort of way, and I would argue that it has a limited chance of success. The odds are very, very long. \

But the fact of the matter is the Democrats in congress don't have a feather in their hat right now. They have done little to help fire up their base (in fact Hoyer and Rahm seem dedicated to kicking the base whenever possible) and the moderates have seen no real activity from them to oppose the president. nothing. zilch. If you can think of a way to produce this impression then you are whiz at this stuff and should be in the business, but this once I think that the right thing to do and the politically savvy thing to do are one in the same.

It takes two sides to cast any legislation or political action, and if we are going to fold everytime because of the way Fox news spins what we do, then we may as well all save time and vote republican now.

If you don't think standing up to the smear machine is useful than I would ask you when the democratic message gets out, and what channel I have to tune to. Other than Olbermann and Stewart I really don't have much I can count on in that regard. Surely you don't expect me to get my info from the Sunday talk shows. Our political machine is pretty quiet. And the Progressive end of the party is squelched over to pacifica usually. The DLC side is pretty loud, but they say very little and are too busy keeping their 'powder dry' to actually stand up for anything.

[Occam Bandage]

45. So, the argument for impeachment now

admits it will be a failure, but suggests they should do it to "fire up the base," because "they need to do something."

If your best argument rests on it being a political game, well, I think the Republicans are going to be able to successfully cast it as a political game. And that would explode in our face.

[kenfrequed]

47. Ok now thats a bunch of crap

I have been arguing ad nauseum on here for impeachment for all the right reasons for quite some time here. I offered you political reasons because you claimed that it had little chance of success and because you thought it would be politically bad and weaken chances of maintaining and expanding the Democratic majority.

I may be an idealist, but when I cannot appeal to your sense of idealism I will appeal to your sense of pragmatism.

We can run all the way to the bank standing up for the constitution, the rule of law, the seperation and balance of powers, checks and balances, freedom from torture, and against this crappy doctrine of preemption. And you know something, I am a fool because I believe in all of that. I actually believe in the Constitution. It's crazy as hell but I do. I believe in this because I believe they have committed multiple and gross impeachable offences and John Dean has repeatedly pointed out how much worse this administrations crimes are than those of Nixon.

If you honestly think we can't win an impeachment against a president more hated than Nixon then I don't know what to do anymore.

If we can't do the right thing without getting hosed by the republicans than what are we EVER going to do? Wait for the super-majority? A super majority we will never get unless we inspire in the public somehow? Do you imagine the antics of Immanuel Rahm and Steny Hoyer are going to inspire a lot of people?

[Occam Bandage]

48. We can't win an impeachment. Honestly. We need a supermajority, or we've wasted time.

Your Mr. Smith goes to Washington speech is very nice and all, and they have indeed committed crimes, but without that supermajority, we've wasted time. And with an acquittal, the Senate will have condoned him. And there is no supermajority coming. Sure, impeachment might help us a little. But you'd have to get it so a dozen Republicans would decide to vote their party the greatest political defeat in American history. And that will not happen. There will be no huge public outcry; the best you can suggest is "the base will rally." And as I said, that which rallies that base does not appeal to the moderates, no matter how badly you want to believe it. (If that were the case, Bush would have sky-high approval ratings)

There's a difference between asking Democrats to do the right thing, and asking Democrats to do the impossible.

[onenote]

46. a c ouple of additonal points

I agree with everything in your post. A couple of things that people sometimes overlook when they compare the current situation with the nixon and clinton impeachment efforts.

First, the clinton impeachment proceedings did little to change public opinion in either direction. People had their minds made up before and stayed unchanged.

Second, the nixon process, over time, did produce a shift in public opinion. But the shift in public opinion was due less to what came out during the impeachment hearings and more due to Nixon's own handling of things: in particular, the Saturday Night Massacre and the disclosure of the smoking gun, which was the result of disclosures mandated by the SCOTUS in connection with the special prosecutor's investigation, not directly a result of the impeachment process.

Third, unlike the Nixon situation where the SCOTUS had ruled that Nixon's withholding of information and obstruction of justice was illegal, the legality of a number of activities that are cited as grounds for impeachment and the assignment of culpability for those acts has not been adjudicated all the way to the SCOTUS and thus is not likely to be a clearly defined in the public's mind.

Fourth, in what may seem (and indeed is) a somewhat illogical twist, the nature of the charges against nixon and clinton (obstruction of justice, lying) were easier for the public to accept as impeachable offenses in the context in which they arose than would be the case currently. THe repubs will undoubtedly scream that many of the actions that are cited as grounds for impeachment were done in an effort to protect the public in a time of war and that it would endanger the nation if president's were hamstrung in their efforts to protect the nation by the risk that they'd be impeached. While I think this is a bullshit argument, I have little doubt that playing the national security card can and will still work for the repubs in this context. Its sort of like the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII -- while we can look back now and see how offensive that was to our constitutional values, at the time, a majority of the Supreme Court and a majority of the American people, found it to be a reasonable, lawful response to wartime.

Again, while I personally don't think that the points made above should matter, I have little doubt that they will if we get into an impeachment knife fight.

[denem]

4. Political Masturbation.

A fishing expedition is a still fishing expedition no matter how much splashing and slapping there is about. Impeach on the Patriot Act - Give me a break. Explicit, from the top authorization of torture would do it, but, try finding any written authorization for the final solution. It ain't going to happen.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Absolutely. And watching him gets DU all hot and bothered.

[robbedvoter]

24. It's better than getting over starting wars and other disgusting acts

Matter of self-respect, really.

[maxanne]

34. right you are

why stand up for the Constitution?

[Occam Bandage]

38. I stood up for the Constitution this morning.

Making oatmeal, I stood up and defended the Constitution by exercising my inalienable right to put maple syrup on it instead of brown sugar.

It did exactly as much good as a failed impeachment bid would.

[kenfrequed]

35. Honestly

So you are saying the administration has committed NO impeachable crimes then?

None?

I don't mean this as a an argument of logic, nor am I asking you to 'prove they haven't committed any crimes.' I am merely curious whether you believe that this administration has committed ANY crimes that are worthy of impeachment.

It is a simple question.

[BigDDem]

5. Is he working on his victory speech for Iowa?

[eppur_se_muova]

6. ... and that's just the index !

C'mon, Bu**sh** has more than 50 pages due him!

[mtnsnake]

10. I friggin love this guy and am so proud he's been my #1 choice throughout

Impeachment, peace, and the environment. It just doesn't get any better than Dennis Kucinich. I have never been able to understand why this guy isn't the overwhelming favorite of our Party, especially during the Bush era at least.

[L. Coyote]

11. More impeachable offenses to add to the resolution daily this last week.

The war crimes/torture cover up is the most persuasive reason so far, with so many criminal offenses:

Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, torture, illegal wars, destruction of evidence, lying to Congress, perjury .....

MORE: Bush Junta Lied About War Crimes to The World, the Courts, ALL Except Pelosi - That's LOL Moranic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

[German1972]

13. any investigation, like impeachment,

of the stuff done by Bush and his administration will be good in the face of the world. Because we (the world) are all just shaking heads, wondering what the hack is going on in the u.s.

[lame54]

22. 50 Pages? - must be the readers digest version...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2442457

[robbedvoter]

23. Now, that's a candidate!

I was just been told by a Biden supporter to "get over it" (his guy's support for war) - and was thinking that sounded very much like what Rove&co were telling us re: the 2000 theft.
Why not support someone you actually don't have to get over horrible stuff?

[Fire Walk With Me]

27. K&R

[LWolf]

29. I support him in this, as I do in all of his efforts

to uphold the Constitution and to move social and economic justice forward.

:applause:

[MalloyLiberal]

30. Yawn

[riqster]

31. Primary support for Kooch will scare the shit out of...

...the somnambulist wing of the party. :evilgrin:

[FlyingSquirrel]

32. DECEMBER 15 2007 .COM

Regardless of whether you think Kucinich can win or not (or even whether you think he'd make a good president) if you believe that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, you should donate to his campaign on December 15, the same date in 1791 that the Bill of Rights took effect, to send a clear message that a large number of us want impeachment NOW!

[SlingBlade]

36. Don't blame Dennis for the DINO’s

Who now rule this party.
He’s got more balls than any so called democrat in Congress and I applaud him.

[hayu_lol]

43. Yeah, Dennis is so great...

when, we all ask, is the Kucinich(333)going to get on the floor for a vote?

If Tom DeLay was in the process of impeaching Clinton, it would be a done deal almost immediately. If Kucinich were a leader, Cheney would now be enjoying plush accomodations at Leavenworth...and Bush would be on the next plane to Paraguay.

Tom would have done it lickety-split. I don't believe gonads even come into play here.

[antigop]

42. Submit it to the House, Dennis! DO IT! n/t