John Dean: Congressman Kucinich's Impeachment Resolution

I would suggest that back then, there were still Republicans that had integrity, appreciated the Facts, were Patriotic and loved Freedom and the Constitution. We no longer have any of that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Congressman Kucinich's Impeachment Resolution, the Parallel to Nixon, and Why Even Nixon's Defenders Finally Abandoned Him
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080725.html

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, Jul. 25, 2008

Before I found myself wrestling with a nasty summer cold/flu bug, I had planned to travel to Washington to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which is holding a hearing today on “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.”

While this was not billed as an impeachment hearing, it was my understanding that I would follow the testimony of Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who introduced a new impeachment resolution on July 10. The resolution states that President Bush “deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization” to proceed to war in Iraq.

Given the fact that Bush will be out of office in less than six months, it is not likely that the Kucinich resolution will receive the consideration it deserves. This is unfortunate. It has been clear to me since 2004, when I wrote Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, in which I analyzed the basis for the very charge that Kucinich has now leveled, that Bush’s actions with regard to Congress – in essence, telling Congress and the American people a deadly lie involving the nation’s blood and treasure – constituted, without question, a “high crime” and impeachable behavior.
It struck me that given my knowledge of the Nixon presidency, and because few in Congress today realize that Nixon was sent packing for a far lesser lie, I might focus my testimony on why Nixon was removed from office. In short, I might be able to add some perspective for the Kucinich resolution. In this column, I will also offer the perspective my experience with Nixon affords, as I consider the case for impeaching Bush.

Congress Is Well-Aware Of Bush’s Imperial Presidency and Its Abuses of Power

...more

This is exactly the point Lungren tried to whitewash at the close of the hearing today.

it was just a mistake in judgment, not a lie. Lundgren has not yet seen all the evidence. If he ever does, he will see that his view is untenable. Lundgren does not deny that Bush was wrong. Lundgren just wants to see more evidence. I would argue that it is precisely in order to obtain the evidence and review it that the process of impeachment is needed.

Throughout the hearing, the speakers were talking across each other because they appear to have never defined what they meant by "impeachment." Impeachment has two, actually perhaps three, phases. In the first, the Judiciary Committee and its appointees act like a prosecutor's office, collecting and reviewing, sifting through evidence to determine whether that evidence supports the second phase which is bringing an impeachment proceeding resolution, presenting the evidence including documents and witnesses supporting it to the Congress. Not until the third phase does the House vote on the impeachment resolution.

Various congressmen were talking interchangeably about various phases of the impeachment process without talking about the process and which phase they were thinking of.

The Republicans condemned the whole idea on the ground that the first two phases had not been satisfactorily completed (not in those words). They did not really deny that the first two phases are appropriate. They simply acted as if the House was being requested to vote on impeachment, i.e., the equivalent of an indictment, right away.

That is incorrect, and those who support impeachment need to clarify what they are asking for. The same witnesses that have been asked to testify and refused (and other witnesses) based on executive privilege, should be required to testify as part of an impeachment process. The House or at least the Judicial Committee should vote to begin an impeachment proceeding and to call witnesses. It is the only way that they can force this administration to provide the information that will permit the House to determine whether impeachment is acceptable to enough of the Republicans.

Those who spoke about the Nixon impeachment process explained that impeachment is a process. But the Republicans weren't listening or did not want to hear those explanations.

:kick:

:P