FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR - The Kucinich Impeachment Resolution - Yeas = 238 Nays = 180 !!

[Breeze54]

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 492

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll492.xml

- The Kucinich Resolution - Yeas = 238 Nays = 180

----------------------------------

Democratic 229

Republican 9

Independent 0

--------------------


---- YEAS 238 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth


---- NAYS 180 ---

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NOT VOTING 16 ---

Barrow
Bonner
Boswell
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Conyers
Cubin
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Engel
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Pearce
Pitts
Rush

-----------------

:applause: :toast: :applause:

-----------

Kucinich wins hearings but not on impeaching Bush

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD91UJD6O1

30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) —

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing

but not on removing President Bush from office.

The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send the article of impeachment — for Bush's
reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq — to the Judiciary Committee,
which buried Kucinich's previous effort.

This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democrats emphatically said they
will not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of
a removing a president from office.

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of
everything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, a Democrat from
Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics,
Democrats said.

[fascisthunter]

1. GOOD... and When stuff comes out

the public may ask lots of questions people on DU have been asking for a very long time.

I imagine the right winger over at slaverepublik are probably feeling a little ill at this news. At least the ones with some brains...

[Breeze54]

2. That public hearing should be quite interesting and open some eyes!!

I am trying to find the difference in the votes of Yeas and Nays
from this vote today and the very first time Impeachement was
introduced and voted on in this Congress, the 110th.

Do you possibly have that link handy?

I'd like to see how many have joined our side since then!!

[fascisthunter]

5. no I don't, but can help look around

[JFN1]

89. Interesting that Conyers didn't vote on this

I wonder if he voted on the last one...

[frog92969]

104. Here's the June 11

The one with 35 Articles-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-401&sort=party

Still looking for 333

[frog92969]

106. Changed to H.Res.799

On Motion to Refer the Resolution
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1039

On Motion to Table
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1037

[pinto]

3. Kick. n/t

[underseasurveyor]

4. So call those 'Yeas' in your state

and keep on em like stink on shit to keep up the support for Dennis. But be courteous and nice of course.

[tbyg52]

27. I'm trying to right now, but mine's mailbox is full.

I hope its from people thanking him for this. I'm sending an email now and will try the phone tomorrow.

[Voice for Peace]

86. we should ask the reps to directly contact the network media to request coverage.

[bananas]

6. k&r #5. nt

[robertpaulsen]

7. It's a start.

Let's hope it's televised so more people demand televised impeachment hearings!

[Breeze54]

14. On Regular TV...NOT just cable!! Maybe on PBS or NBC, CBS & ABC!!

I want every American to hear this, not just those with cable/satellite TV !

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[bonito]

8. Somebody pinch me I think I'm dreaming

:crazy:

[Jack Rabbit]

9. As long as we're going to air Bush's dirty laundry, it's good.

We may never get around to impeaching and removing the war criminals Bush and Cheney, but we're going to know why we should have.

[Breeze54]

17. Exactly!! Baby steps, aggravating baby steps!

:toast:

[Beam Me Up]

10. An "election year review"?

Oh, great, so this whole thing can be couched in solely political terms, Dems vs Repugs in an election year.

Excuse me if I'm less than ecstatic. This is WAY too little WAY too late. He should be in front of the Hague already. Jebitz!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. Wasn't this vote just to send it to the Judiciary Committee, like the last 35 articles?

They send it to committee and it will be up to Conyers to let it live or die.

[Cleita]

12. Conyers didn't vote?

Is he being blackmailed or not? What is going on with him? And why isn't Nancy Pelosi anywhere on this vote?

[Runcible Spoon]

16. good questions.

as for Pelosi, she was probably writing her tax rebate press release :puke:

[Breeze54]

22. Is there some rule that bars them from voting on this?

Very strange but it doesn't have them listed as not voting.

Edit: I just saw Conyers name as not voting but where's Pelosi's name?

[lfairban]

49. I smell a Mexican Standoff:

On May 8, Conyers sent a letter to President Bush stating that he would immediately move to impeach the president if he authorized a military strike against Iran without first consulting Congress.

"Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that ‘the President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach’ the President.

http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/202.html?task=view

In this Video Nader quotes someone from congress who says that Impeachment might result in an attack on Iran.

[Breeze54]

51. Awesome links!! "I will move to 'impeach’ the President."- Biden

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Cleita]

54. What a bunch of scaredy cats.

Congress and Conyers to take that chance. They can't allow this administration to scare them into submission anymore and for what it's worth, they are planning to invade Iran and institute martial law anyway, no matter who licks their boots. Let impeachment happen and let the chips fall where they may. My instinct tells me that they will be far more vulnerable in attacking Iran if they are being investigated for impeachment than if allowed to continue on openly flaunting their scorn for our Constitution and the laws of our country.

[judasdisney]

68. Conyers has good reasons to keep his powder dry:

As head of the Judiciary Committee, he needs every ounce of the appearance of impartiality and appearance of levelheadedness for the moment of truth if/when he is the gatekeeper at the moment of "critical mass" and his committee is forced to begin impeachment proceedings.

I'll let Conyers off the hook for this one. Waxman, however, is a skunk for his crimes of complicity against Sibel Edmonds, and I wouldn't trust that bastard as far as I can throw a piano.

[pokercat999]

98. Or........... when he lifts the rug and sweep, sweep, sweep.

What problem? Nothing here, just move along.

What me? No, no I'm sure to be re-elected.......just a little insurance, hehe. Just an ounce of prevention..... wouldn't want the big bad radio guy saying bad things about me, ya know? Gotta keep control, just watch'n over my sheep, keep'n em calm, shearing time come November, gotta be ready, get the fix in early I say.




Scum mostly just scum from the bottom of the citizenship barrel. Folks who couldn't survive on the outside.

[LWolf]

13. Perhaps the next resolution will actually get impeachment hearings.

He did say he'd keep introducing them.

[Breeze54]

19. DK is on the floor now fighting for poor people against the CC companies and house loan companies

You know he'll keep it up! :D

[MuseRider]

31. LOL

If anyone thinks he will quit this they do not know much about him. He will shake this like my dogs shake their toys until the toys come apart and they win. He is a pit bull. :)

[Breeze54]

33. You got that right! He will keep going! We should all send him $$ for his re-election campaign!

Contribute:

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=58

Home
http://www.kucinich.us/

Impeachment
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/

[MuseRider]

35. Yup

Already did but we must keep it up.

[Breeze54]

36. I'm sending what I can... but I need help!

;)

[LWolf]

37. Yes, he will.

He has my gratitude and support, as always.

[chelsea0011]

15. Why do so many republicans hate America?

[Breeze54]

20. I've been asking that for years!!!!!

Rethugs suck!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rethug

[Creideiki]

102. They hate us for our freedoms.

:)

[newmajority]

18. Brian Baird actually got a vote right for a change??

Did someone rewire his buttons so he thought he was voting against it? :shrug:

[Breeze54]

21. Looks like you have your work cut out for you.....

Keep fighting back!! You're going to need to be very vocal in the next few years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Baird? My part-time "liberal" rep? Took time off writing editorials in support of the war?

He finally figured out that Clark County isn't in Alabama.

[Seen the light]

23. Which Republicans voted yea?

Ron Paul and Walter Jones jump out at me immediately. Who are the other seven?

[Breeze54]

28. Go to the link and you can see the names italicized

180 ? :P

[biermeister]

92. kickin for ron paul!

[KamaAina]

24. Nine repukes did the right thing?!

Did the Rapture Index just go up a couple of points??

Brady (TX)
Gilchrest
Jones (NC)
Manzullo
Murphy, Tim
Paul
Reichert
Shays
Turner

well, okay, 8 plus Paul, but still...

[KharmaTrain]

43. Ah...It's Election Year And Shays Is Running Scared

Kudos to Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones for being the lone GOOPer (even before Paul) to stand up against both this war for profit and this regime. Looks like Shays is trying to hedge his bets...the weasel that he is. He's hearing footsteps and covering his ass.

Overall a very good vote...even the Blue Dogs went along. Progress...slow, but progress.

[jazzjunkysue]

55. Shays voted yes!!!!! MY Shays???? Really????

:wow:

[KharmaTrain]

63. He's Scared Shit Again...

In '04 he was boooshie's BFF...then he almost lost his seat in '06...he's been real quiet ever since. This dude is long overdue for retirement...good luck and hope you make it happen.

[Castleman]

87. Reichert? Our own little arsonist?

They eyes starting to turn towards you after your opponents house got torched making you a bit uncomfortable? Decided to vote for what was right instead of what Herr Bush tells you to?
CYA, baby, CYA!
Still gonna be one of your last votes, Darcy Burner is going to stomp you but good this year.

[MuseRider]

26. Huh. How about that!

Good. The hearings should be stacked with a bunch of great people testifying and I would bet that the public will have even more to say about impeachment after that. We may see torches and pitchforks after all.

I am stunned that my Congresswoman voted Yea. I just got mail from her saying it was a waste of time to do hearings and impeachment. At least she changed her mind about the hearings. I bet she got a lot of mail from the citizens of great state of Kansas who are getting sick and tired of the NeoCon Talibornagin bullshit.

[Breeze54]

30. Maybe all the petitions and e-mails are working?!

;)

:toast:

:hi:

[MuseRider]

34. Let's hope.

If they are it is about damned time they started listening to us. A lot too late but a start back on the right track. They have to know their seats could be in jeopardy if they keep blowing us off. Don't they? No? OK, probably not but they were at least right this time. We must keep up the pressure. I am going right this minute to write a nice note to my Congresswoman.

[Breeze54]

38. Good idea!! I will too but in the AM....

I want to make sure I'm alert when I write them. :P

:toast:

[anonymous171]

29. Don't congressional republicans realize that voting "yea" would be a great way

to distance themselves from Bush? Or are they not thinking about keeping their seats?

[Breeze54]

32. They stampeded away from Bush today on the Medicare Veto over ride

I'll give them that... this just freaks them out.

[yurbud]

39. Dems must have made a deal with Bush: Lieberman gives Dems majority so long as they don't use it to

impeach

[onenote]

78. huh? I think you are confusing the House and the Senate

It takes 2/3 vote in the Senate to impeach, so Lieberman hardly is a deciding factor.

[yurbud]

112. the deal with Lieberman was for control of senate after 2006 election

If he caucused with Dems, they got majority. If he caucused with GOP, it would be split, and Cheney would have been the deciding vote.

Don't you think the GOP would want something in exchange for Lieberman?

The second best thing to having a majority is making it impossible for the other side to do anything of substance once they have the majority, making them look impotent and unfit for power.

[1monster]

40. Of course, Mica is on the "Nay" list. I wish to god we could get some decent people in Congress!

[Breeze54]

41. Maybe he can be removed? Vote the bastid out!! n/t

[autorank]

42. 229 to 0 Democrats. Now that's what I call great news.

Now how about an intellectually honest Federal prosecutor - grand jury combo to indict this clown, the day after the election. But the grand jury could start now.

[Breeze54]

44. Democratic 229 + Republican 9 say YES to Impeachment!!

Sounds good to me! Fitzpatrick?

[autorank]

64. Yes, I like that wedge.

Can't find the normal vote by party breakdown for some reason. I'd like to know who the knightly nine are.

[Breeze54]

65. They are differentiated by party in italics at the link.

On the Roll Call page for the house in the OP.

That's how they do it but it doesn't transfer over when copying and pasting.

They do not break the roll call votes down by state or party, like the Senate does.

It's totally aggravating, I know but that's how they do it.

Italics for one party/bolded for the other.

You have to go to the link to find out. :hi:

[autorank]

67. The Nifty Nine - Republicans Voting YEA on "The Kucinich Resolution"

Remembered it - this is where I got the House votes in the past http://www.govtrack.us/ I haven't used
it in a while but it's a good one. They refer back to THOMAS if they don't have the answer. How's this?

Republicans Voting for "The Kucinich Resolution"


1) Brady (TX)
2) Gilchrest (MD)
3) Jones (NC)
4) Manzullo (IL)
5) Murphy, Tim (PA)
6) Paul (TX)
7) Reichert (WA)
8) Shays (CT)
9) Turner (OH)

:toast: to the very Honorable Dennis Kucninich & Breeze54 for sharing the great news :toast:

[Breeze54]

69. And a toast to autorank for being there all the way & helping to find the repub Yea details!!!

:toast:

:D

[onenote]

101. is the "nifty nine better than the "tip of the hat 24"?

Before getting too excited about the nine repubs that voted to refer DK's latest resolution to Judiciary, keep in mind that 24 repubs voted last month for the motion to refer DK's multi-count impeachment resolution.

Virtually without exception, these repubs -- the 24 in june, and the "nifty" nine -- aren't supporters of impeachment. They voted to refer to resolution to Judiciary because it was the easy, safe way to kill the resolution -- the same reason that dozens of blue dog Democrats voted for referral. If it wasn't referred, the resolution either would have had to face an up/down vote or a vote to table (kill) the resolution.

The votes of the "nifty" nine are nothing to celebrate about.

[onenote]

77. a bit of an overstatement methinks.

There were three options on the Kucinich's impeachment resolution: an immediate up/down vote, a vote to table or a vote to refer. The fact that every Democrat voted to refer hardly suggests that they all would have voted for impeachment if there had been an immediate up/down vote (or would've voted against tabling if that had been the option). Referral was the "safe" vote, just as it has been on Kucinich's other impeachment resolutions.

I know folks want to be excited about this, but the fact is that it really doesn't change things very much. Yes, there may be a "televised" hearing on the failings and misdeeds of the chimpy gang, but it has been made clear that they won't be "impeachment" hearings and the chances of them leading to anything further in the way of impeachment proceedings are very small.

The reason for holding these hearings are complex, but mostly have to do with an effort to be responsive to that portion of the Democratic party base that has been calling for hearings and in order to keep negative stories about this administration in the news in order to help Democratic congressional candidates.


I think holding hearings is a good thing -- a position I've taken for several years -- but I'm not so naieve as to think that they will produce an impeachment proceeding.

[KaryninMiami]

45. Has this made it to the MSM or any of the news shows yet?

I don't recall seeing it on Countdown and didn't get hime in time to watch Tweety- anyone see any mention of this story today anywhere on t.v. or radio (besides Air America)?

[Breeze54]

46. I didn't watch the news... I was watching the voting on C-Span and I don't buy Pay TV.

But they're saying this will be going public, with the investigation and the hearings.

It was all over the news when DK read the 35 Articles of Impeachment.

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. Thank you Dennis for fighting the good fight!!

kick and nominated

[IDemo]

48. I'm going to want the collector DVD for this one when it comes out

[Canuckistanian]

50. This was symbolic, right?

Like, a "sense of the Senate" resolution, right? Won't it be killed in a committee somewhere?

[Breeze54]

52. No !

It's being investigated and there will be hearings.

[Canuckistanian]

53. OK. Here's hoping....

[jazzjunkysue]

56. Here's my letter to my own Chris Shays

Dear Congressman Shays,
Thank you for your two recent votes to provide oversight to oil company profits and to hold impeachment hearings about George bush.

The country has suffered and will continue to suffer from the gross negligence and mismanagement of the GOP, and it is with tremendous relief that I see you are no longer giving them a blank check.

The congress must represent the constituants and you most certainly have. The congres must provide oversight of the executive. I think even conservatives will come to realize the value in that as a democrat stands to take the white house for the forseeable future.

I am finally being represented. George Bush is a criminal and the GOP must be stopped from further damaging our international credibility and our economy.

Thank you.

[jazzjunkysue]

57. www.congress.gov: You know you want to.

Do it for democracy. :hug:

Feels good.

[Breeze54]

59. Great letter!! -- Is he a repub?

:yourock: for sending that, jazzjunkysue!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

We all should be writing letters to the Nay voters and ask them why?!

:D

[jazzjunkysue]

73. Thanks. He's a repub but seeing the light.

One can hope. He's about to get replaced, methinks.

[Lugnut]

58. I feel faint.

My useless Rep Kanjorski actually voted Aye. Way to go Paul.

[Breeze54]

61. I did too earlier!

Is he an R too?

Write him and thank him!!

Positive reinforcement and all that!

Address link above courtesy of jazzjunkysue! ;)

[Lugnut]

76. It's hard to tell with Paul.

He's a Dem but all he's done since he got to DC is take up space.

[onenote]

82. Kanjorski also voted aye on referring Kucinich's other impeachment resolutions

Why would this vote come as a surprise?

[Imagevision]

60. Complicity if the Dem's and the M$M fail to report this as a valid news story event.

[Breeze54]

62. Do you have cable TV? I haven't watched TV today at all.

I was watching C-Span online.

Have you seen anything yet? :shrug:

It is in all the major newspapers... online, when I searched.

[Alexander]

66. How did Nancy Pelosi vote? She's not listed.

I'm surprised nobody else asked that question.

[Breeze54]

70. It has been asked, over and over & at Post # 12... this isn't the only thread about this.

She's gone missing!! :wow:

Post # 12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3624508&mesg_id=3624707

[Hippo_Tron]

103. The Speaker of the House traditionally does not cast a vote

She will when it's needed to get to 218 or on ceremonially occasions but otherwise the Speaker abstains.

[Alexander]

110. I figured as much. Thanks for the info.

[liberal N proud]

71. Another set of hearing the bu$h regime will refuse to testify for

I am all for this in hopes of exposing the crimes at hand and hope something comes out of it. But in reality, with the history of this regime, we all know what they will do.


K&R

[Breeze54]

72. Look at the bigger picture.... get it out on the airwaves for the public to see

Expose them for all their lies and the election is a short 3 months away!! ;)

The bush WH doesn't have to testify! There are plenty of witnesses willing and able!!

;)

[liberal N proud]

74. Definitely

[tekisui]

75. If we pound it into the public discourse, through televised hearings.

We can hope for Impeachment hearings, which do not carry the protection of executive privilege.

[Z_I_Peevey]

79. Boren voted yea.

I'm pleasantly surprised.

[onenote]

81. why are you surprised? Boren voted yea on motions to refer Kucinich's other impeachment resolutions

[Z_I_Peevey]

83. I haven't kept up with his votes on this issue, and my

expectations of him are usually very low. Usually votes pro-Bush.

[bdamomma]

80. good to see my two reps voted yes, one is up for re election

[orleans]

84. great. when is the hearing scheduled for? december? n/t

[Breeze54]

90. Before Aug. Recess, possibly....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3628445&mesg_id=3628470

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2361&Itemid=1

The House Judiciary Committee may let anti-war Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich present his case
for impeaching President Bush before the August recess, the panel’s chairman said Monday.

[onenote]

100. presumably before Congress adjourns at the end of September

since the purpose is to provide fodder for Democratic candidates running for the House not to push impeachment.

[Yael]

85. I see my idiot rep didn't even bother to vote.

I can't wait until November. We have got to get him outta there.

[Indenturedebtor]

88. WOOHOO another strongly worded letter

Way to go Kucinich. Conyers you're off my Hannukah list. Keep it up and you're not going to my Purim party this year :grr:

[ann_american2004]

91. Jaded as I am cant help but think air time doesnt amount for much

especially peppered with pundits that can say any ludicrous thing they want to these days on so-called news programs.
The swan song has been sung. This would have mattered four years ago. not much but hubris left - not much more we can do about it.
People acting like this admin and its cronies would be viewed as burglars inside the bank and the judgments and bemoanings of "their inside the bank!!!" can be televised and commented on ad nauseum but they are still shoveling our cash into their big bottomless pockets.

Obama '08 Change you can believe in

Congress '06 Change you can't get passed.

Pelosi Change? Did I say that?

[Bette Noir]

93. Just the thing

to put McCain over the top.

(sarcasm)

[D23MIURG23]

94. Better than nothing.

It still infuriates me that this won't be about removal from office. How many hearings have we had that have gone nowhere?

[happygoluckytoyou]

95. can we impeach McCain... ahead of time... just in case he gets elected ;*)

[lonestarnot]

99. LOL! I'm for dat!

:P

[bluevoter4life]

96. K&R for Kucinich

Already phoned my Congresswoman to thank her for her vote. Thank you Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and THANK YOU Dennis. :kick:

[Twist_U_Up]

97. Just as long as 911 isnt mentioned right ?

smoke and mirrors
911 was an inside job

[Phred42]

105. So? It's a meaningless event.

I give Kucinich all the credit in the world for trying - but really folks

Kucinich can't impeach Bush/Cheney without taking down their co-conspirators: Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller.....

How many times have we been here?

[Breeze54]

107. Never.

[Phred42]

108. You understand that Pelosi has already stated that they are

Only looking at "abuses" not crimes and that she will still not allow an impeachment process.

Right?

[Breeze54]

109. Looks like she changed her mind, huh?

:P

Baby steps, baby steps... besides if these hearings are on the national news
(which would be great but I won't hold my breath), the public would not be
pleased and right before an election would be a good thing, imho.

Bush can still be impeached after he leaves office.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01/15/bush-legacy-post-term-impeachment/">Bush Legacy: Presidents Can Be Impeached After They Leave Office
Jon Ponder | Jan. 15, 2008

Pelosi Says House Judiciary May Hold Hearings On Kucinich Impeachment Resolution

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10274/

by John Bresnahan

WASHINGTON -

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee
may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

To read the resolution. http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0710-17.htm

Kucinich is expected to offer a “privileged resolution” this afternoon calling on the House
to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and
the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military
action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Pelosi has said previously that impeachment “was off the table,” so her comments this morning
were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush,
although no one in the Democratic leadership believes that is likely since the president has
only six months left in this term.

“This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to
it by the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi told reporters. “Not necessarily taking up the articles
of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some
hearings on the subject.”

Pelosi added: “My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee.”

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee had no immediate comment when asked whether Rep.
John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman, planned hearings on Kucinich’s impeachment resolutions.

UPDATE:

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2361&Itemid=1

Kucinich May Get Hearing On Impeachment Resolution

Kucinich introduces article of impeachment against Bush.

The House Judiciary Committee may let anti-war Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich present
his case for impeaching President Bush before the August recess, the panel’s
chairman said Monday.

Chairman John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., said Judiciary will take a broad look at the behavior
of the Bush administration, and Kucinich can lay out his arguments as part of that as-yet
unscheduled hearing.

[Phred42]

111. I hope YOU'RE right.

but she's saying not in her lifetime (basically)