Calls to impeach Cheney attract media

An update from Robert Wexler of wexlerwantshearings.com...

This morning, The Philadelphia Inquirer published the complete editorial written by U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL.), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) calling to Impeach Cheney now. Previously the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Boston Globe had rejected the op/ed. But, with more than 140,000 people having signed the petition for impeachment hearings, a few mainstream media outlets have begun to awaken to public demand to hold Cheney accountable. The opening grafs of the editorial:

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

On Tuesday, Dec. 25, the Miami Herald ran an article, Wexler calls for Cheney impeachment, that was picked up in syndication by several other newspapers -- Detroit Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Fort Worth Telegram, Contra Costa Times, Sacramento Bee, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, NC News & Observer, and more. A Miami Herald broadcast partner, CBS4-TV, also spread the news. A snip from the Miami Herald:

Wexler, who now calls his 2002 vote to authorize Bush to attack Iraq a ''mistake,'' told listeners of Florida Progressive Radio last week that Congress "is way behind the rest of the country on the [impeachment] issue.''

But he suggested that he had to be convinced.

ISSUE IN DISTRICT

''When I first heard about the effort I did not fully appreciate that the beliefs being expressed were not simply beliefs of people on the fringe,'' he said. "But the last two times talking to people in my district, I was convinced that this, in fact, is a mainstream issue.''

His 19th congressional district, which is heavily Democratic, stretches along the South Florida coast and includes parts of Palm Beach and Broward counties.

OMG! You mean a member of Congress finally, finally listened to his constituency? And they're in line with the DFHs of the blogosphere, imagine that! Maybe a ''huge uphill battle" for Wexler and his colleagues to buck the party leadership, but what if this democracy thing finally caught on? I won't hold my breath but I will voice my support for Wexler's efforts.

If you haven't signed the letter, click here. The goal is 250,000 signatures by January. Wexler plans to present the signatures to the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to lend their support and sign, too.

Are you listening Steny Hoyer and Madam Speaker? How much longer will you continue to ignore the will of the people?

Put impeachment. Back! On. The. Table!

[That's all. No more after the jump.]

There's more: "Calls to impeach Cheney attract media" >>

House Judiciary Committee Schedules "Scooter Skates" Hearing

Mark you calendar now. Although it isn't yet showing up on the official docket just yet, RawStory is reporting that The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for next Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10:15 AM. Chairman John Conyers said in a Tuesday press release, "In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused. . . .Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

Make sure you have an ample supply of popcorn. Stay tuned for details.

I have a hunch the Senate Judiciary Committee will have it's own hearing. I don't think the Decider's decision to let Scooter skate is just going to be a three day story.

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee Schedules "Scooter Skates" Hearing" >>

This Week In The House Judiciary Committee

Here is this week's House Judiciary Committee hearing schedule. All hearings subject to change. No refunds will be given in the event there is a rain out after the first pitch.

Monday 06/25/2007 - 1:00 PM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Response to Air Quality Issues Arising from the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001: Were There Substantive Due Process Violations?

A Live Webcast is available here.

Tuesday 06/26/2007 - 9:30 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Hearing on Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws - The Issues

A live Webcast can be found here.

Tuesday 06/26/2007 - 1:00 PM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Hearing on the National Football League’s System for Compensating Retired Players: An Uneven Playing Field?

A live Webcast can be found here.


Tuesday 06/26/2007 - 2:00 PM
2237 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on Habeas Corpus and Detentions at Guantanamo Bay

As of right now there will be no Webcast and this is the one I wanted to see.

Thursday 06/28/2007 - 10:00 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on: The Impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear on the Effective Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

Here is where you can pick up a live Webcast.

Here is a link to the Ledbetter opinion.

There's more: "This Week In The House Judiciary Committee" >>

House Judiciary Committee

The witness list for the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on: War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas.

The Honorable Stuart W. Bowen Jr.
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Arlington, VA

Thomas F. Gimble
Principal Deputy Inspector General United States Department of Defense Washington, DC

Alan Grayson
Grayson & Kubli, P.C. McLean, VA

Scott Horton
Adjunct Professor of Law Columbia University School of Law New York, NY

Erica Razook
Legal Advisor to the Business and Human Rights Program Amnesty International New York, NY

Barry M. Sabin
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of Justice

You can pick up a live webcast here. The hearing starts at 2:00 PM Eastern.

There is an added bonus attraction. At 4:00 PM Eastern The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will hold a Hearing on: Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives on Immigration Statistics. No word whether the hearing will be webcast.

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee" >>

This Week In Your Judiciary Committees

The coming week is relatively light. On Tuesday 6/19/2007 at 2:00 PM Eastern the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas. The witness list isn't up yet, but we will try to keep you informed. If you want to watch you can pick up a live webcast here. At 4:00 PM Tuesday 06/19/2007 the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will hold a hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives on Immigration Statistics." I don't think it is going to be webcast. On Thursday 06/21/2007 at 9:00 AM the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is holding a hearing on: "H.R. 558, the “African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007” and H.R. 899, “Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007.” It will be webcast. At 12:00 PM Thursday the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will conduct a hearing on "The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters". A live Webcast will be available.

Over in the Senate Judiciary Committee the action doesn't start until Wednesday. At 10:00 PM Eastern, the Full Committee will conduct a previously postponed hearing on "Rising Violent Crime in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. " The witnesses include The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, United States Senator [D-LA], The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senator [R-LA],The Honorable James B. Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, The Honorable David L. Bell, Chief Judge, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, New Orleans, LA, Robert A. Stellingworth, President & CEO, New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, New Orleans, LA, Anthony Cannatella, Deputy Police Commissioner, New Orleans, LA, and Hans Marticiuc, President Houston Police Officers’ Union, Houston, TX.

Senator Feinstein will preside over a hearing on “Judicial Nominations” starting at 2:30 PM.

Thursday the full Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing entitled "Civil Rights Division Oversight." The hearing is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM. Witnesses include Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Brian Landsberg, Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, CA, and Helen Norton, Visiting Assistant Professor School of Law, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

There's more: "This Week In Your Judiciary Committees" >>

Where’s the House Judiciary committee staff?

Given the total flop that House Judiciary engaged in with the foot-rubbing ”grilling” of Monica Goodling, it’s a very relevant question.

Where’s the committee majority staff on this? Remember, that’s how people like Bobby Kennedy and Fred Thompson got their names ... committee staff asking actual, or seemingly so, hard-hitting questions on major investigations.

Instead, as Dahlia Lithwick points out, we got this:

It’s not just that Goodling comes across as better, smarter, and more honest than Gonzales, Sampson, and McNulty put together, although she does. It’s that the committee, in expecting to question the Great Exploding Idiot Barbie today, is completely underprepared and overmatched.

Chalk up another one to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Or the soft stupidity of a House Democratic party that is still stuck in the pre-BushCo, or even pre-Gingrich-DeLay, era of governance.

Cross-posted at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Where’s the House Judiciary committee staff?" >>

House Judiciary Committee Chair and Members Ask Gonzales Follow-Up Questions About Todd Graves Firing.

Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker reports that

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), along with subcommittee chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) wrote Alberto Gonzales today to press for details about the firing of U.S. Attorney for Kansas City Todd Graves and the subsequent hiring of Bradley Schlozman.

Here is part of the letter. The full text can be found at the link.

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing to formally restate Chairman Conyers' request at the end of your recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee for the prompt production of all documents, in unredacted form, relating to the termination of Todd Graves, the former United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, who we now know was the ninth U.S. Attorney forced to resign by the Department in 2006.

This request would also cover all documents relevant to the selection of Brad Schlozman as the interim replacement for Mr. Graves, including documents regarding other candidates considered for this position, if any. As we understand it, this will require a new search by the Department of Justice, in addition to providing unredacted copies of already-produced proposed termination lists.

We also have concerns with your suggestion that Mr. Graves' termination was somehow not part of the same process that led to the other terminations, given the fact that Mr. Graves appeared on Kyle Sampson's proposed termination list that was transmitted to Harriet Miers in January 2006, just weeks before Mr. Graves was asked to resign.

As Representative Lofgren pointed out in her questioning, there are disturbing indications that the decision to fire Mr. Graves was related to his disagreement with a voter fraud lawsuit pushed by Mr. Schlozman, the very person eventually named by you to succeed Mr. Graves as an interim U.S. Attorney. Notwithstanding your assertions, our review indicates that the district court decision dismissing that lawsuit focused on much more than the procedural defect of naming the wrong defendant....

Given these troubling circumstances, in addition to receiving the requested documents, we also request that you promptly explain your understanding of the facts regarding this termination and replacement, including but not limited to who placed Mr. Graves on the termination list and why, who was consulted on his termination and on his replacement by Mr. Schlozman, and who made the final decisions. In addition, please identify all current and former Department employees with information on this issue so that they may be interviewed, just as we have interviewed present and former Department personnel on the other eight terminations. Finally, please inform us whether any other United States Attorneys were terminated or asked to resign during President Bush's second term and, if so, who they were and the Department's basis for the termination or requested resignation.

I wonder if he is going to answer? Probably not. Given his performance the other day, it is pretty obvious he holds the committee in contempt. He won't worry about the letter until the committee starts talking about impeachment.

I wonder if the letter will be reported in the Star? Nah. Why would the Star report something involving the Kansas City US Attorney scandal? We Red State people can't handle the truth. Yes, Steve Kraske I am taunting you.

UPDATE: I have added the last substantive paragraph to give a little more flavor.

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee Chair and Members Ask Gonzales Follow-Up Questions About Todd Graves Firing." >>

House Judiciary Committee To Hear Gonzales

At 9:30 AM Eastern, Alberto Gonzales will begin his testimony to the full House Judiciary Committee. You can pick up the live webcast here. We have an office pool (we are calling it the pinhead defense pool) on how many times the Attorney General's memory fails him.

My question to him would be some thing like this. "Mr. Attorney General, could we arrange for you to see a specialist about your very serious memory problems?"

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee To Hear Gonzales" >>

The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them

There has been much written and discussed of late on the roiling scandals permeating the US Department of Justice. Much of it, and rightfully so, is being driven by the Democratic left. Our own Corpus Juris has been both eloquent and dogged on these issues, and deserves our commendation and thanks. Although I have seen absolutely no evidence of this from CJ, or any other contributor here, there are many of our brothers and sisters out there among the political activists and blogosphere that are, unfortunately, viewing this set of issues as but another political battle to be played for maximum advantage against the Republicans. Such a view cannot, and must not, be our tact.

The cracking of the Justice Department scandals must be a goal of justice and the rule of law, not a political goal. Quite frankly, adherence to steadfast political goals, albeit it on the other side, is what got us to this point in the first place. The actions of the investigating Congressional committees should not be to advance political goals, they should be to advance the principle of justice irrespective of whether the benefit inures to the Democratic or Republican side. To act otherwise puts the result above the process; the foundation of American law, and indeed American democracy itself, is the primacy of a fair and impartial process not the guarantee of any particular result or goal.

There has been a long and slow degradation of the understanding of this fundamental premise by both the American public and their elected leaders. When either side decides that "political goals" are primary, that inherently places results above the process. I have practiced law in the governmental misconduct and criminal areas for twenty years, and the phenomenon I describe is quite evident in the halls of justice. A lot of the circumstances and problems we are focused on today are the festering mature result of the primordial decisions of one party, the Republicans, to serve "political goals" by declaring themselves the "law and order party" and spreading fear of isolated and ultimately inconsequential, yet publically hyped and discussed, results in criminal cases. If a particular criminal defendant went free because the police or prosecution had substantially violated fundamental Constitutional protections, they screamed and bellowed "Hide the women and children, those liberals have freed this heinous criminal on a technicality to roam your streets and rob, rape and murder again".

So it began with characterizing hideous and substantive Fourth Amendment violations of fundamental search and seizure law as "mere technicalities". Soon judges and prosecutors, usually being elected officials themselves, started shading their duties and principles under the law to find creative ways around Constitutional protections in order to avoid results that would be unpopular. Then the officials ran again for election proudly proclaiming how they had protected the "law and order for the citizens" by "clamping down on criminals" and "elimianting the criminal's use of technicalities". The more they talked the talk, the more they walked the walk.

The sad result over time is the situation we now find ourselves in where technicalities (read: the Constitution) be damned, the government and justice system is to be used as just another partisan tool. The Attorney General of the United States dismissively brands the Genevea Conventions as "quaint" and inconsequential. The President of the United States belligerently ignores the Constitution screaming that "it's just a damn piece of paper". The Executive Branch acts, and thinks, like Article II of the Constitution (the one delineating and defining the Executive Branch) is the only portion that exists. This is what happens when political goals (the results) trump adherence to the principles of the system (the process). There is no way to excise politics completely because it is inherent in the process at hand; however, it must not be the guiding intent. If the fundamental process can be restored and borne out, our victory will flow therefrom automatically.

There's more: "The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them" >>

House Judiciary Committee to Probe Bush on Torture and Patriot Act Statements

RAWSTORY's Brian Beutler is reporting that:

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will be investigating all of President Bush’s so-called signing statements to determine how drastically the president has misinterpreted laws passed by Congress

In particular Conyer's is interested in two widely reported signing statements The first is a December 30, 2005, signing statement in which Bush asserts "The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks." and the second signed by the President on March 9, 2006, claims "The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations." Boston Globe, April 30, 2006.

Before the last election Republicans complained that if he ever became Chairman Conyer's wouldn't roll over and play dead. I guess they were right.

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee to Probe Bush on Torture and Patriot Act Statements" >>

Hello--I am the new kid in town.

Blue Girl has asked me to follow the doings of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 110th congress.

The Senate Committee got off to a fast start yesterday with a background hearing on "Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs. "

The second witness, Jim Harper of the Cato Institute gave a very good summary of the issues involved in data mining in the fight on terror. It seems data mining is the worst of all possible worlds. It wastes a lot of resources creating false positives and every false positive is a potential source of problems for the poor American falsely targetted. According to Harper:

(D)ata mining is not, and cannot be, a useful tool in the anti-terror arsenal. The incidence of terrorism and terrorism planning is too low for there to be statistically sound modeling of terrorist activity.

Interesting. If that is the case, why do we mine data? This is a topic we will revisit during the coming congress.

The house judiciary committee doesn't have a hearing scheduled until next week. On 11/15/2006 - Representative Conyer and his collegues will consider "Legislation Cracking Down on Caller ID Spoofing." Not the same as data mining, but important to people who have been spoofed.

Now if I can just figure out how all this HTML stuff works.

There's more: "Hello--I am the new kid in town." >>