The case for impeachment


Cynthia McKinney had her darker moments, but she was still one of the few members of Congress willing to tell the truth about Bush at all times. Just before she left Congress, she introduced an impeachment resolution. It's well worth a read. This is from the introduction to an article at AfterDowning.org (reprinted by Truthout at the link above):

As some people learned from the minimal and abusive media coverage, on December 8, 2006, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced Articles of Impeachment [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16230] against President George W. Bush, making him the 10th president of the United States to face such action. Of course, McKinney was on her way out of office and thus more willing to challenge the Democratic Party leadership by upholding basic Constitutional principles.

    Fewer people are aware that Congresswoman McKinney on December 27, 2006, entered into the Congressional Record (pages E2253 - 2255) extended remarks on impeachment that merit our close attention. Why would she do such a thing on her way out the door with no chance of reintroducing her bill in the new Congress? For one thing, she clearly would agree with the response Congressman John Conyers gave to Lewis Lapham when asked what he thought the point was of publishing a lengthy report laying out evidence of Bush's impeachable offenses. Conyers' response was: "to take away the excuse that we didn't know."

You can't add much to what Conyers said.

I'm ambivalent about impeachment. On an emotional level I'd like to see it happen, but I know that it won't. Losing an impeachment battle (which would surely happen) might do great harm to the cause of saving the Republic. On the other hand, a successful impeachment might just save the Constitution for another century. Unfortunately, given recent history, it's absolutely impossible to believe that more than a handful of Republicans would do the right thing.

Here, by the way, is her list of impeachable offenses. She expands upon each in a later part of the resolution:
I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
    (1) Self-Exemption From Laws Upon Signing.
    (2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings.
    (3) Promoting Illegal War.
    (4) Promoting Torture.
    (5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Torture.
    (6) Use of Illegal Weapons.
    II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
    (1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection.
    (2) Replacing the Veto With Signing Statements.
    III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
    (1) Suspension of Due Process.
    (2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
    (3) Non-Cooperation With Congress.
    (4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System.
Any one of them would constitute good grounds. It's depressing to note, that there's no question that Bush is guilty on all counts. It's also depressing but true that she barely scratched the surface.
Posted: Monday - January 08, 2007 at 07:49 PM          

©