Impeachment reply from Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)

[DKRC]

Received this today from my Rep. after calling his office in DC & Tacoma repeatedly since the 24th of April. Finally a response. Not what I wanted to hear, but a clear statement of his position.

=====================================

May 4, 2007

Dear ,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me in support of legislation from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to initiate impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard Cheney (H.Res.333). I appreciated hearing from you and would like to take a moment to respond.

As you know, impeachment involves the legislative branch of our government (Congress) bringing accusations against officials such as cabinet members, judges, the Vice President, and the President. The power to impeach resides solely with the House of Representatives; the power to try an impeachment case resides solely with the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the inquiry in case of impeachment of the President. Traditionally, the House, after drawing up and voting on articles of impeachment that specify the charges and their factual bases, assigns congressional "managers" (prosecutors) to present the case before the Senate. At the start of the trial, the members of the Senate are sworn in as "jurors" by the chief justice. A two-thirds vote of the senators present is required to convict. Punishment is limited to removal from office, though disqualification from future office is considered to fall within the discretion of the Senate, and the acts of the accused are still subject to criminal proceedings in the courts. Impeachable acts cited in the Constitution are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

One of the most difficult questions raised by these provisions is: What are high crimes and misdemeanors? The conclusion reached by most scholars is that clear criminal law violations represent impeachable offenses, whereas misconduct that is not necessarily criminal but that undermines the integrity of the office (such as disregard of constitutional responsibilities) may rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Partly because of this, impeachment has taken place infrequently. By making impeachment difficult, the Constitution guards against the intrusion of the legislature into the business of the judiciary and executive branches. It also ensures that impeachment remains primarily a legal, or judicial, procedure rather than a political process.

I agree with you on the need to confront Vice President Cheney on the points where he has been dishonest with the American people. As for impeachment itself, that is a very serious step to take and one I cannot support at this time. I strongly believe that it should be reserved for the gravest of occasions, because respecting our process of democratic governance is such an important foundation in our country. I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would bitterly divide our country - which is part of the reason why the Constitutional standard for impeachment is so high.

Please know I strongly disapprove of this Administration's policies and will continue to vigorously fight Administration initiatives that I believe are not in the best interests of the nation. On issue after issue, the Administration's policies have failed, and it is our responsibility to push for a change of course. As a member of both of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, I am working with my colleagues to identify policy options to do this. I am pleased to see much greater oversight taking place in Congress this year and look forward to continuing to challenge the Administration's actions and to propose more suitable alternatives.
We must continue to exercise our oversight responsibilities and investigate the Administration whenever we believe improper or ineffective actions are being taken.

Again, thank you for letting me know about your support for this resolution. Please be assured that I will continue to challenge the Vice President when I disagree with him. Should you have any specific ideas for policies to advance as an alternative to this Administration's agenda, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Adam Smith
Member of Congress

=========================================

Anyone else receiving anything from your Rep.s?

[Pierzin]

1. He is WORTHLESS. Say it with me. WORTHLESS.

Thank God for Jim McDermott and a few others in Congress who have the Balls and the decency and the freaking guts to call them out for the worthless pack of lying toe suckers that they are!

I mean, WTF? So he dissaproves!!!:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
People who say oh Bush only has so much time left blah blah lah blablalblabalbal.

This president and his cabal are the WORST EVER! :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: It makes me ill.

We should start a campaign that ANY CONGRESS PERSON who does not support Impeachment should retire at the end of his/er term. You know, like a forced resignation. He doesn't approve??? god go pull someone elses wanker that is so worthless!
what about the other 27 people who saw your post DKRC? I posted more on this in my journal, i was so repulsed by it. thank you for taking the time to write and harrass your congress critter.

peace!

[Norrin Radd]

2. I wrote to my rep, McDermott, asking him to cosponsor Kucinich's HR 333

and this is the reply I received:


Thank you for your recent communication regarding your outrage over President Bush and Vice President Cheney's actions. I, too, am infuriated by much of what the President and his administration are doing. With Democrats gaining control of both the House and the Senate, Republicans can no longer shield the President from accountability. In addition, the Democratic Congress should be able to curb and reverse some of the Administration's excesses. Investigations have begun and hearings are being held in several committees to uncover and halt some of the actions the Administration has taken with impunity during the past six years of one-party government. I will continue to pay close attention to new information as it surfaces. Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind as this matter develops.

Thank you once again for contacting me. As your Representative in Congress, it is critical that I understand the views of my constituents. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,


Jim McDermott

Member of Congress

[rhett o rick]

3. What does he conceder "grave"? "I strongly believe that it should be reserved for the gravest of

occasions, because respecting our process of democratic governance is such an important foundation in our country."

Shredding the bill of rights isn't grave enough for him. Imprisoning children in an internment camp isn't grave enough. Torture, rendition? How about domestic spying in violation of law.

Let me guess, if Bush had sex with an intern, bingo, grave.

[DKRC]

4. Hell if I know what constitutes "grave" in Adam's view

:shrug:

But it's become abundantly clear to me that I'm being taxed without a shred of representation.

:grr: