We all know about Ellen Tauscher not knowing that Alberto Gonzales can be impeached; she cleared that one up. Now we have a report from the LA National Impeachment Center, including a lot of my fellow 41st AD delegates, on a meeting they held this week with Henry Waxman:
Towards the end of the meeting, Dorothy Reik, President of Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, urged Waxman to use the inherent contempt power of Congress to bring criminal charges against Bush and Cheney and their aides, hold a hearing in Congress on those charges, and then hand down the punishment, prison time. Reik expressed frustration with the refusal of Bush administration officials to testify before congressional committees, despite the fact that subpoenas had been issued.
Your witnesses aren’t showing up — They’re ignoring your subpoenas, said Reik, so it is time for you, Congressman Waxman, to recognize that there is a precedent for members of congress to initiate and follow through on criminal proceedings.
Waxman said he was unaware of the inherent contempt power. In a follow-up letter after the meeting, Winograd emailed him information on the inherent contempt precedent.
Inherent contempt hasn’t been used in decades, so it’s a little excusable. But Congressmen like Waxman ought to know about all of the tools at their disposal in fighting the intransigence of the Bush Administration and getting to the truth.
Waxman’s thoughts on other topics, including impeachment, on the flip.
Since Rep. Waxman is the most dogged investigator in the entire Congress, I think this answer to the question of impeachment is appropriate.
Congressman Waxman, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, told an impeachment
delegation meeting with him in his Los Angeles office, Tues., Aug. 7, 2007, that he would mull over
his constituents’ articulate arguments, watch the Bill Moyers’ interview on impeachment, and weigh whether there was sufficient evidence to, not just impeach, but convict Bush and Cheney. Waxman told the delegation it was not enough to believe Bush and Cheney were responsible for high crimes; his decision to support or co-sponsor an impeachment resolution must be predicated on the knowledge that there is overwhelming evidence for a conviction.
You shouldn’t put the cart before the horse when it comes to something like this. Indeed, considering that Congress keeps SANCTIONING the illegal acts undertaken by this White House, I’m not sure there’s anything illegal left that would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. But this was an interesting exchange:
At the outset of the meeting, Waxman expressed a hesitancy to come out publicly for impeachment, explaining that his role as a vigorous investigator would be compromised by taking a stand that could be perceived as partisan or partial. Winograd responded with, At some point you, the investigator, have enough evidence to hold these criminals accountable. What is the point of continuous investigations unless an indictment or impeachment process is begun? Showing some hesitancy, Waxman insisted that a successful impeachment trial would necessitate strong and convincing evidence to persuade both Democrats and Republicans that high crimes had been committed. In the next breath, Waxman recited a litany of Bush and Cheney’s crimes, everything from the Iraq war to the outing of a CIA agent to illegal wiretapping. “You sound like you are delivering the opening argument for an impeachment trial,” said Winograd. With good humor, Waxman nodded and smiled.
Again, Congress enacted the illegal wiretapping into law last week, so I think there’s a disconnect going on here.
I’m proud of my AD delegates for holding their representative accountable and for presenting him with new information, on the subject of inherent contempt, that even he didn’t know about. Maybe in September we will see a bolder move by the Congress to end this absurdity of White House officials defying subpoenas and skipping out on hearings. And some point you can only write so many strongly worded letters.
