If impeachment is going to happen, it won't be based on DK's resolution

At least I seriously doubt it will.

I don't have any problem with DK's position on impeachment or even to his effort to get his resolution time on the floor yesterday (although the failure of that effort was inevitable).

What I don't understand is why DK chose to introduce his impeachment resolution in a manner that is inconsistent with historical precedent, especially recent historical precedent. The typical way that an impeachment process begins is with a simple resolution authorizing and charging the House Judiciary Committee with the task of conducting an inquiry and reporting back to the House with recommendations regarding articles of impeachment. Language such as the following, from the Nixon and Clinton impeachments:

HR803: "RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

The initial resolution starting the clinton process was similarl: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hres581.html

DK didn't go this route. He jumped right to articles that he himself drafted. It is never going to happen that way, given recent history. And its not going to happen that way going forward. If articles are going to be drafted by Conyers committee, they're going to reflect Conyers thinking, not DK's. Its simply the way it is.

So why did DK take the approach he did? I don't know. Maybe it was bad advice. Maybe he figured even the approach that follows historical precedent was going to be shot down, so why not make a bolder statement? Maybe he was just showboating as some claim. It really doesn't matter. His resolution was never, and is never, going to go anywhere. Whether it helps spur something else is still an open question.

but I realize his resolution won't go anywhere.

to say the least

Do you think DK cares how it is done? As long as it is done is fine with all of us.

and pursuing it in a way that has no chance inevitably raises the question of how serious he is about it. I think he is serious, but I think he's made a bad decision in how he chose to proceed.

they sat on it and did nothing. hence this new step.

it was a full=fledged statement of articles of impeachment, rather than a resolution seeking to authorize the Committee to undertake the task of conducting an inquiry and recommending articles. It skipped a step that, historically, impeachments follow.

I applaud Kucinich for at least bringing the motion to the floor rather than use it as "campaign bait"...talking the talk, but walking the walk.

That said, I tend to think a lot of what he did was more for show than for substance. As you properly note, the Judiciary Committee is the one responsible for drawing up articles of impeachment...under the direction of the party leadership. Pelosi and Hoyer weren't going to do that so Kucinich is trying to make an end-run. Now if he can line up 150 or more votes, he's gonna get leadership to act.

If there's anyone in the Congress whose familiar with Impeachment and its procedures its John Conyers and he's still trying to get the smoking guns that can make a compelling impeachment occur.

The upshot is the Democratic party feels they have too many other things to deal with than to mess with an impeachment a consensus feel will fail. Personally, I'd love to see a debate on cheney's criminality on the House floor.

Dennis flipped the fuckin table over and reset it.
Good for him.

But that's not even the point. The point is that from the outset, DK went in a direction -- drafting his own articles of impeachment -- that was inconsistent with historical precedent and therefore virtually certain NOT to be the basis for any impeachment action. If he had drafted a simple resolution comparable to the ones that started the Nixon and Clinton impeachment, he would have, I believe, a more compelling argument for forcing consideration of it by the full House.

Considering that Pelosi and Hoyer would have shot down any simple resolution, Kucinich had to force the issue.

:thumbsup:

so he did it the only way he could, a Rule IX question of the privileges of the House.

Conyers wouldn't move on it, so DK did.

He ended up exactly where he started -- with a resolution referred to Committee that, in its present form, will never be considered.

really hard to tell.

You seem to be happy it ended that way.

I'd love to see impeachment get legs. And for that reason I'm glad that DK has been vocal. I'm just not certain that tactically he has given the impression that he is serious about what he's doing.

there's nothing inherently wrong with introducting Articles, especially if House leadership is reluctant to consider the question. he's just doing Conyer's work for him.

If Conyers wanted to move on it, he could use 333 in toto, as a framework, or scrap it and refer his own Articles back to the House. Just because DK submitted Articles doesn't preclude Judiciary from considering them.

personally, i think DK was trying to light a fire under John Conyers to actually start holding hearings, rather than staging a show in the House basement.

DK could've proposed such a resolution and tried to have a serious discussion about why the Judiciary COmmittee should be authorized to move forward in the same way it was authorized to move forward against Clinton.

I think that approach would've made it more difficult for Pelosi and Hoyer to simply try and squash the effort (although they probably would've anyway). But at least he'd have the argument available that there is at least as much reason for the Judiciary to take a serious look at whether impeachable offenses have been committed and to recommend articles as there was in the CLinton case. I think that would put the repubs in much more of a spot opposing the resolution and would also give red-state Dems some additional cover. Would it be enough? Maybe not. But the approach he took was doomed from the get go -- a majority of the house was never going to vote on articles of impeachment without following the process set by historical precedent and his original resolution, which suffered from the same infirmity, was never going to trigger any action.

it would have been just as easy for them to quash the approach you advocate as it was for them to quash the resolution DK submitted back in April. And there's still no reason that Judiciary couldn't amend, revise, add to or take away from the Articles as submitted by DK.

He's bringing attention to the issue. There's no House rule requiring Articles to be drafted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Hell, Bruce Fein drafted the Articles against Clinton, and he was not even in Congress.

it up as part of regular business. Good for DK.

since Kucinich is the only one trying, he's already on thousand percent more likely to succeed than the naysayers.

If that's all it does, that's fine with me. But, I appreciate you raising the question because I didn't know that. :)

that DK has the option to bring this back to the floor at his whim he plans to use that as leverage to get the leadership to allow Conyers to launch an investigation.

:shrug:

Can you explain a bit more?

It was my understanding that once the resolution was referred to the committee, it was out of DK's hands to bring it back up himself. He could, of course, draft yet another resolution and try the process all over again (presenting it as a question of privilege) but presumably the result would be the same as well.

desperately needs to be removed from their positions...

Why are you attacking the only person who is doing what is right?

Why are you attacking the only person who is doing what is necessary?

You may think that suggesting that DK has the correct goal but is employing a doomed strategy is attacking him. I don't.


But if you prefer, we can all just pretend that DK accomplished something big yesterday. Just tell me, what exactly was it?

By focusing on the meaningless minutiae of how he goes about it, you are shifting away from the task at hand -- impeachment. And that task is formidable.

The fix is in with these Democrats: someone has gotten to them to prevent impeachment. There is no other way a party would not move against a known and acknowledged criminal (of the other party) when the majority of the public favors that move.

Now who is it that wants to shut down debate? And that was hardly an attack, and it's hardly the truth that he's the only person doing what's right.

Oh, never mind. If you want to see the world in black and white, feel free.

is the very survival of the Constitutional Republic.

He is the only one doing what is right.

First, he is not the Judiciary Committee, nor a subcommittee -- hence he could not issue what they have in the past. Second, he followed the route that previous individuals in congress have; for more examples, read John Nichol's "The Genius of Impeachment."

He doesn't have to be a member of the Judiciary committee to introduce a resolution that calls for the full House to authorize the Judiciary COmmittee to conduct an impeachment resolution.

And his resolution doesn't follow the route taken in either of the two presidential impeachments that have occurred in the 20th Century.

then come back to us

Will I find out in that book that only a member of the judiciary committee can introduce a resolution to intitiate an impeachment inquiry? ANd will it tell me that the resolutions that authrorized the initation of impeachment inquiries against Nixon and Clinton didn't really happen?
It should be an interesting book.

to xvi cetury britain and why using this TOOL is important

when I pointed out that you don't have to be a member of Judiciary to introduce an impeachment resolution and that the Clinton and Nixon impeachments began with resolutions authorizing the House Judiciary to conduct an inquiry and report back regarding articles of impeachment?

The answer: Nothing.

But if people want to challenge something that I say and then run away to a different subject when I rebut them, I guess there's nothing I can do about it, is there.


By the way, I can make it three for three on presidential impeachments. From the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the resolution that was referred to the Committee on Reconstruction that started the impeachment process and led up to the subsequent adoption of articles of impeachment:


"Resolved, That the Committee on Reconstruction be authorized to inquire what combinations have been made or attempted to be made to obstruct the due execution of the laws; and to that end the committee have power to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses oil oath, and report to this House what action. if any, they may deem necessary; and that said committee bade leave to report at any time."

But, hey, if the brits did it differently in 1592 or something, I'm sure that's exceedingly persuasive to members of the House of Representatives. Not.

my post before saying this. You are saying something that isn't about what I wrote.

I posted that DK had chosen to introduce a resolution setting forth specific articles of impeachment rather than a resolution that called on the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry and report back with recommendations on articles of impeachment (the original post in this thread). I pointed out that this was inconsistent with historical precedent, especially recent historical precedent, citing the examples of the resolutions that started the impeachment process against Nixon and Clinton.

You responded with a post (#19) that responded: "First, he is not the Judiciary Committee, nor a subcommittee -- hence he could not issue what they have in the past. Second, he followed the route that previous individuals in congress have; for more examples, read John Nichol's "The Genius of Impeachment."

I responded that you are wrong. I will admit that I didn't realize that your assertion was that DK couldn't do something because he wasnt a committee or subcommitte -- I assumed that what you were trying to say was that he couldn't do it because he wasn't on the committee or subcommitte. Accepting what you said at face value, it is true, but bizarrely irrelevant. The point is that DK could've put on the "table" a resolution, like the ones used in past impeachments, that called for the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry and to report back to the full House regarding articles of impeachment. I conceded that might not have been any more successful, but I think its odd that he would adopt a strategy that is inconsistent with how the process has worked most in past presidential impeachments. And the fact is that, as I asserted, the recent historical precedent is for impeachment inquiries to start with the authorization of a Judiciary inquiry by the full House, an undeniable fact. (I subsequently pointed out that the Andrew JOhnson impeachment also started that way, meaning that every presidential impeachment effort in US history that has gone anywhere has started the same way -- the way DK chose not to go.)

Now, since I have quoted your post in full, I think things are completely clear. Even accepting what you wrote at face value, you're still wrong.

Do yourself a favor, and read everything you can on the subject. I'm not saying that in a snarky way. And I'm not saying DK's resolution was perfect, or that it couldn't be improved -- in fact, the Judiciary Committee is very capable of doinbg just that. But he took the route that others have taken, which leads to resolutions being referred to the JC.

not what I said, it's you who is "wrong." Read my post again -- it's pretty basic.