Marcy Winograd, former Democratic candidate for the U.S. House and President of the Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles (PDLA), sent the following e-mail missive to PDLA members earlier today describing a meeting on Tuesday with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

The conversation regarding Impeachment, the Congressman's views on same, and the arguments made by the activists in favor of it are interesting and offer some insight into both Waxman's thinking at this moment and, undoubtedly, that of many other House Democrats who clearly are seeing things differently from inside the Beltway than those of us outside of it.

We can only hope that all U.S. House and Senate members are getting such an earful now that they're on recess and back in their home districts. Here's Winograd's instructive report in full...

Waxman Says He Will Keep an Open Mind on Impeachment

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.

Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, California's 41st Assembly District Delegates, the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, and the LA Green Party participated in the office delegation, while a group of impeachment supporters rallied outside, holding Impeachment is Patriotic signs and a huge banner that read Impeachment is on Our Table.

Inside, the 14 impeachment lobbyists meeting with Waxman offered multiple arguments...

Blogged by Brad from the road...in Texas...

Now UPDATED with a response from Hinchey's office. See update at end of article.

Democratic members of the U.S. House and Senate have announced they are prepared to issue a very, very stern slap on the wrist to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales.

Moments ago, in a joint news release (posted in full below) issued by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), it was announced that Censure resolutions, which have absolutely no force of law or actual consequences if passed, would be brought against the three men in both chambers.

"From misleading this country into invading Iraq to establishing a warrantless domestic spy program, this White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy," says Hinchey in the statement.

Of course, it could be argued that a resolution of Censure, in lieu of a trial on Articles of Impeachment, is one of the only ways the U.S. Senate can bring some form of historic accountability to the three accused men until such Articles of Impeachment are sent to them by the U.S. House. But where the Senate may be limited in that they cannot bring their own Articles of Impeachment, the U.S. House has no such excuse.

The Censure resolution brought by Hinchey seems to fly in the face of his own comments on the Peter B. Collins Show just weeks ago when he said that this administration was "the most impeachable in the history of our country." From the transcript/audio of the interview:

And yet, Hinchey is now supporting only Censure, apparently.

If Hinchey and his 19 co-sponsors in the House believe the White House needs condemnation for the points they describe in their resolutions of Censure --- which read like a swell description of Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- then they have little excuse not to perform their Constitutional Duty and bring forward Articles of Impeachment in the House for this precise set of serious crimes which, as Hinchey said, "disregard the rule of law that guides our democracy."

Then again, courage of conviction is not something Democrats are too often accused of.

While we were unable to reach the White House for comment, we are fairly well able to anticipate their expected reaction to the Democrats latest attempt at "accountability":

The press release from Feingold and Hinchey, announcing Censure Resolutions in both the House and Senate, follows in full below. Following that is an update with a response from Hinchey's office to the comments above...

Guest blogged from DC by Margie Burns

Listening to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) for fifteen minutes is worth a week of the para-discourse from elsewhere on national television. Feingold said on Meet the Press this morning that he will introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush “in a few days.”

The censure resolutions will focus on two huge issues:

• Bush's process for getting us into the war in Iraq, including misleading statements and misuse of intelligence before the war; and
• “the outrageous attack on the rule of law,” including illicit electronic surveillance and other surveillance, and administration approval of torture. “This administration has assaulted the constitution,” Feingold said briskly.

Feingold said that he has talked with the Democratic leadership about the resolution, adding that it might provide an opportunity as well for Republicans uncomfortable with the administration but unwilling to use impeachment.

Questioned by Tim Russert about whether the resolution would pass, Feingold said basically we’ll see how it goes. He commented, “There’s a lot of support in the country for actually impeaching the president and the vice president.”...

Blogged by Brad Friedman from the road in Houston...

Heat for Impeachment continues to build as a former U.S. Prosecutor told me yesterday that she feels "it's almost as if the Bush administration is asking to be impeached," and as Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) reportedly opened an appearance with a crowd of supporters on Friday by proclaiming, "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!"

While discussing the extraordinary claim reported Friday from an anonymous senior administration official in the Washington Post, charging that George W. Bush has the power to order his Dept. of Justice to not pursue criminal contempt charges as brought by the House against his own administration, former Asst. U.S. Attorney Elizabeth de la Vega made a rather notable point of her own.

Calling it "shocking" and noting that the claim was made only by an anonymous source --- not actually announced as official policy by Bush --- de la Vega, the author of United States V. George W. Bush et al., told me that, should such an extraordinary legal argument be made as official policy, that action in and of itself would be an impeachable offense as she sees it.

She made the point during our on-air discussion about Impeachment during Friday's Peter B. Collins radio show which I am Guest Hosting weekdays through July 27. (An audio clip of the exchange is posted at the end of this article)

"Congress really needs to get serious, at this point, because [the administration is] just being completely defiant and have absolutely no grounds for taking this position," she told me.

"I really think, it's almost as if the Bush administration is asking to be impeached," she said. "It is not true that the President can instruct the Department of Justice not to charge his own people. Especially when he's implicated in this as well."

In reference to the administration's claims of Executive Privilege to block the Congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents from former Bush attorney Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, de la Vega advised Congress to ignore the claims made by the unnamed official and proceed with contempt charges.

If Bush should make that legal argument officially, that in itself would be grounds for impeachment, according to the former federal prosecutor...

Blogged by Brad Friedman from Houston...

Radio host Peter B. Collins has been earning his keep of late. On his last show before a three-week Summer vacation today (we will be filling in to Guest Host for him for the next week and a half), Collins finished up a segment with Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today concerning his efforts to renew the Fairness Doctrine with two quick, unrelated questions.

First, Collins asked whether the Congressman supported the controversial Rush Holt Election Reform Bill (HR 811) "in it's current form." The legislation has come under fire from Election Integrity advocates for its continued allowance of the use of dangerous DRE touch-screen voting machines, and a host of other concerns.

Hinchey --- who is currently signed on as one of the bill's co-sponsors --- responded by saying he had "some very serious questions about it" and feels that "it has been compromised."

While there was no time to follow up with details, his comments likely referred to the troubling changes made to the bill by the House Administration Committee. Originally, the legislation had called for complete disclosure of electronic voting system source code to any member of the public interested in examining it. By the time the bill was voted out of committee, however, those important disclosure provisions had been changed to require that the source code be placed in escrow, to be examined only by so-called "experts" in the event that a problem is discovered during an election, and only under non-disclosure agreements.

Those changes led Holt himself to admit that "the vendors have won," according to reports from several Election Integrity advocates who attended a town hall event where the New Jersey Congressman spoke over the weekend. No word on whether Holt may be removing himself as a co-sponsor of the Holt bill in light of his reported admissions.

Secondly, Collins asked Hinchey, "What is your posture on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney?"

(Hat tip BRAD BLOG Toon Scout, Pokey Anderson)

Blogged by Brad from the road in St. Louis...

From David Swanson at AfterDowningStreeg.org:

So what's the hold up? Accountability awaits.

Blogged from D.C. by Margie Burns

In a pretty spectacular peroration tonight, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann delivered a ten-minute indictment of the president and vice president and asked Bush to perform one last act of patriotism: resign.

Complete transcript here, video at left.

Saying “Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign” and adding that Nixon’s resignation, belated though it was, ranked as one final action of nonpartisanship, Olbermann urged George W. Bush to emulate Nixon, “not for self, not for party,” but for the country.

Olbermann also prefaced his speech, in one of several promotional moments, with the comment that “No one is holding their breath on this, but frankly, were Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush true patriots, they would resign.”

Guest blogged from D.C. by Margie Burns

The total commutation of Libby’s sentence should put an end to any questions, if any remain, about whether the Bush-Cheney cabal is completely crooked.

Briefly: the published statement for public consumption that the president found Libby’s sentence “excessive” is transparently false. If he had merely found the sentence excessive, he could have commuted it PARTLY. Two and a half years could have been reduced to two, or to one and a half, or to one year. It could have been drastically commuted to six months, or to three months.

That did not happen. Instead, George Walker Bush elevated smarmy propagandists like Byron York over federal judges. He elevated Charles Krauthammer over three U.S. Circuit Court Judges appointed by three former presidents. (Not that Krauthammer’s first reaction after Libby was indicted was to defend Libby. Au contraire: Krauthammer took the line, on ABC’s Inside Washington, that Libby’s actions were the work of one man, namely Libby. Neocon loyalty at work – until the echo chamber pulled Krauthammer back in line.) Bush elevated rightwing talk show hosts, the creepy National Review, Fox television and Rupert Murdoch's media empire and the now-moribund PNAC over the U.S. justice system.

Typical for him, that.

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

A long predicted constitutional battle has finally begun. The judiciary committees of both the House and the Senate have subpoenaed administration documents pertinent to the U.S. attorney scandal. In a letter of response, White House counsel Fred Fielding has declined to cooperate, invoking executive privilege.

The judiciary committees have, in a separate action, also subpoenaed documents relating to the warrantless wiretapping controversy. The White House is again expected to invoke executive privilege.

Congressman John Conyers has fired back at the White House attorney...

Blogged by Brad (quickly) from Atlanta...

Constitutional law professor Jonathon Turley on Olbermann: "For many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense."

"This administration, I have to say, has a certain contempt for the law," added Turley. "They treat it like some of my criminal defendents used to treat it. ... They come up with any argument that might work. ... It's a sort of shocking development. ... But at the end of the day, they will lose, and they're making the situation worse."

Full story, video at RAW STORY.

Blogged by Brad from Atlanta...

Just out from AP...

As TPM Muckraker notes in their breaking coverage, "The trigger is pulled...Get ready for a huge court fight."

RAW STORY has a statement from Sen. Leahy concerning the subpoenas.

And as Joseph Cannon guest blogged here yesterday, a subpoena was/is needed to begin the impeachment process. Any subpeona issued to Cheney's office and/or the White House. Well, we now have one.

"If Cheney or any of his underlings refuse to comply with a single subpoena --- and that's a very good bet --- he becomes instantly impeachable, on the same grounds that brought down Nixon," wrote Cannon, who knows the topic well.

Stay tuned. It may be a busy summer...

UPDATE 12:06pm PT: In a statement sent to The BRAD BLOG (posted in full below) Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says "After a year and a half of stonewalling by the Administration...The bipartisan support for issuing these subpoenas demonstrates that both Democrats and Republicans are fed up with the misleading statements from the Attorney General and the Administration about this illegal program."

Feingold's complete brief statement follows below...

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

As Des points out below, top Republicans are now plotting ways to remove Dick Cheney from office. The thinking is that a vacancy in the Veep's office could well provide a berth for one of the 2008 Republican contenders --- McCain or Thompson.

The strategy could work two ways, of course. Anyone who replaces Cheney will get Bush administration "cooties." It won't be easy to wash off the smell by November of 2008.

How to bell the cat? After Downing Street has some excellent suggestions. I have one of my own.

Call on your senators and congressional representatives and ask to have documents subpoenaed from Cheney's office. Which documents? It almost doesn't matter. Documents pertinent to the energy task force. Documents pertinent to the use of torture. Documents pertinent to the Niger forgeries. Anything will more or less do.

All of Cheney's staffers can be subpoenaed as well, on any number of issues. A Congressional investigation of Plame-gate. Haliburton contracts. The refusal to comply with the National Archives. Anything. Everything. All at once.

If Cheney or any of his underlings refuse to comply with a single subpoena --- and that's a very good bet --- he becomes instantly impeachable, on the same grounds that brought down Nixon. Cheney no longer has many friends in Congress. Nobody has his back.

If every person reading these words made the call to his or her House and Senate members, Cheney could well be history. First subpoena, then impeach. That's the plan, and it WILL work.

Click here to contact your Congress member...

UPDATE 6/27/07 11:15am PT: Breaking: AP reports subpeonas are served on Cheney and the White House...

Guest Blogged by Joseph Cannon

As you know, Dick Cheney recently declared that the Vice President is not really part of the Executive branch of government. Why? Because he doesn't want those snoops at the Information Security Oversight Office to stick their unwelcome noses into Cheney-land. (The job of the ISOO is to oversee how everyone within the Executive branch handles classified material.)

Cheney argues that the Veep has a legislative function, since he casts a tie-breaking vote in the Senate --- a task he has had to perform all of seven times. By this reasoning, the Veep has worked only seven days since January, 2001. Congressional Democrats have crafted the perfect response:

More than that. Dick Cheney has claimed "executive privilege" a number of times, most notably when asked to disclose his energy policy meetings. Legislators have no such privilege. May we see the documents now?

More than that. Do you know the technical grounds for the impeachment charges brought against Richard Nixon? Subpoenas. Nixon ignored them, and so he had to go. Any congressional committee may now subpoena anything it wants from Cheney's office. Not a single document in the joint is protected by executive privilege. Not a single person working under Cheney may claim executive privilege. Dick Cheney has made very clear that he is not part of the executive branch of government.

If Cheney does not comply, he becomes instantly and impeccably impeachable.

What will it take for Congress to realize that George W. Bush believes them to be utterly irrelevant? In the latest laugh in the face of Congress, RAW STORY is reporting that un-resigned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used his stealthily-gained power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for one last time before Bush would sign the bill recently passed by Congress revoking that authority.

Congress recently revoked the little-noticed provision of the so-called "PATRIOT Act" which allowed such appointments to be made without Congressional confirmation. The bill had been sitting on Bush's desk for signing until late yesterday, when he finally signed it. But only after Gonzales reportedly named a new interim attorney to replace the fired US Attorney from California's Central District (Los Angeles), Debra Wong Yang.

Note: RAW STORY followed up it's report from yesterday, with another today suggesting that an interim appointment may not have been made after all. The issue is still murky, it seems. Just more fallout from a runaway Bush Administration that believes they are accountable to no one.

The change to the PATRIOT Act, revoking the Bush Administration's ability to appoint interim attorneys at will, was sent to Bush for signing on June 4th. The bill passed the Senate by a 94 to 2 vote, and in the House by 306 to 114. Bush waited until last night, June 14th, to quietly sign the bill.

At the same time, Washington Post is reporting that the Dept. of Justice itself is investigating its own Attorney General's testimony to Congress, in which Gonzales claimed he had not spoken to any "fact witnesses" at the DoJ concerning his involvement in the US Attorney Purge scandal due to Congress's ongoing investigation into the matter. The DoJ's liaison with the White House, Monica Goodling, would later testify under immunity to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that Gonzales did speak of the matter, to her, in a conversation that she characterized as making her feel "a little uncomfortable." It seems Gonzo may have been hoping to get his/her story straight before testifying about it to Congress.

"It's remarkable that he's under investigation and that he's still attorney general," NYU School of Law professor, Stephen Gillers, told WaPo, underscoring both the obvious, and the Congress's continuing penchant for letting the White House play them for chumps. Why impeachment proceedings for Gonzales (much less Bush) have not already begun is beyond us. But as abused spouses also tend to wait until they're nearly dead before taking action to truly change their predicament, so, it seems will the Congress.

Gillers continued to note the absurdity of DoJ's investigation of itself. "At some point, it can no longer be done internally. This cannot be done by Gonzales's subordinates," he stated, pointing out the need for a Special Prosecutor at the very least.

But Bush doesn't care, of course, and continues to laugh in the face of Congress, which continues to behave politely, hoping everything will run its course in due time, as if they are not dealing with a near-sociopathic entity in the Bush Administration.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that the White House now admits they have "found" some of the four years of "lost" emails sent by White House staffers on RNC email servers which are thought to contain details about the US Attorney purge. The "found" email has previously been politely requested by Congress. The White House, of course, has yet to turn them over to Senate investigators.

Bush's one, clear, continuing message to Congress...