Advertisement
Rep. Nadler attended a meeting of the Village Independent Democrats Thursday night in Greenwich Village. I was there, along with several other NYC impeachment activists.
Nadler spoke at length about the Iraq war, warrantless surveillance, and impeachment. He said that the Democrats will have their last opportunity to stop the war during Bush's term when it comes time to vote in September on the Iraq supplemental providing funding for 2008. The Democrats are saying they will vote against the bill unless it sets a date certain for beginning and ending a withdrawal, and only if the funds are to be used for the following purposes the process of withdrawal, diplomatic negotiations, and reconstruction. He said that if Bush vetoes the bill that they will keep sending it back to him and saying that he is the one who's not funding/supporting the troops--not them. And that if the Republicans are sufficiently scared of the electoral consequences of continuing to support this war that they override Bush's veto, then this strategy will succeed. He didn't explain why such a strategy wasn't tried in May, when plenty of people were advocating for it.
With regard to the recent legislative debacle involving warrantless wiretapping, Nadler said that the original Democratic House bill provided pretty much everything that they had been asked for by the Mike McConnell. But then the White House started smearing the Democrats with charges of being "weak on terror" and demanded major new changes, providing the administration with what Nadler termed "carte blanche" to spy without warrants or FISA court supervision. He said that Pelosi and Conyers thought the demands were outrageous but they decided to approve them anyhow lest they be--you guessed it--smeared with charges of being "weak on terror."
When it came time for Q&A, Nadler was bombarded with questions about impeachment, which took up probably 90% of the conversation. He said it would be "emotionally wonderful" to impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. That they are all three "richly impeachable" and have committed any number of impeachable offenses. And that impeachment is "morally justified and legally defensible." But he concluded that it would be "self indulgent" because "impeachment does nothing without a conviction in the Senate. And barring some unforeseen cataclysm, that's not going to happen." But that if he thought it would happen he'd be the "first in line" to start impeachment and that he's open to having his mind changed.
He went on to say that if the Judiciary Committee moved forward with impeachment they would spend the rest of the year doing what they're already doing--investigations. (He neglected to mention that their investigations have been stymied at every turn by the administration's open contempt for the Congress and refusal to comply with subpoenas.) He also said that an impeachment inquiry would probably be held in February, just when the presidential races will be really heating up, and that the most important thing for people to be focused on is getting a Democrat elected in 2008. And that anything to give substance to the Republican argument that Democrats were being "ideological" would backfire on the Democrats. Instead, Nadler suggested trying for a criminal indictment of Bush and Cheney after the election. He also mentioned the possibility of pursuing charges of inherent contempt against Miers et al. in the meantime.
The audience wasn't buying any of this, and Nadler was taken to task for placing political expediency above the Constitution. And it was pointed out that he couldn't know whether or not the evidence would be sufficient to persuade the Republicans to convict without holding an impeachment investigation and trial.
After the meeting I buttonholed Nadler and didn't let him get away--following him out the side door, into the elevator, up the stairs, down the sidewalk, etc. until he finally escaped into his car. I was less in his face than some other people but asked him harder questions. I basically got him to admit that if the Dems didn't have the balls to even start investigating impeachable offenses because they don't want to seem "ideological" it's hard to imagine they'll have the balls to send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Harriet Miers. And that referring the contempt charges to the court system was a dead end that would just run down the clock and let the Bush administration quietly off the hook. That without the power to enforce subpoenas, impeachment was the only way they were going to compel people like Rove and Cheney to ever testify. (He said--with an obvious lack of conviction--no, we're going to try really hard to get Rove to testify. Ha ha ha.) I also pointed out that if the Democrats think they can get the Republicans to vote against Bush on Iraq because the war is so unpopular, why couldn't they get the Republicans to vote against Bush/Cheney in an impeachment trial--because they're arguably even less popular during the war and have no political capital to offer Republican members of Congress. Nadler didn't really have an answer for this and said "okay, let's use the September vote as a test".
Nadler had been very confident in the meeting but during our conversation he had a hard time looking me in the eye. I think he's very strong at answering initial questions about impeachment and then a first round of follow-up questions. But if you can follow up to the follow-up questions you get him to the point where he runs out of pat answers and has to admit that his arguments don't ultimately hold water. I think the best way to move Nadler is in small meetings where people can make him follow his arguments to their logical conclusion and show that they don't hold water.
Nadler spoke at length about the Iraq war, warrantless surveillance, and impeachment. He said that the Democrats will have their last opportunity to stop the war during Bush's term when it comes time to vote in September on the Iraq supplemental providing funding for 2008. The Democrats are saying they will vote against the bill unless it sets a date certain for beginning and ending a withdrawal, and only if the funds are to be used for the following purposes the process of withdrawal, diplomatic negotiations, and reconstruction. He said that if Bush vetoes the bill that they will keep sending it back to him and saying that he is the one who's not funding/supporting the troops--not them. And that if the Republicans are sufficiently scared of the electoral consequences of continuing to support this war that they override Bush's veto, then this strategy will succeed. He didn't explain why such a strategy wasn't tried in May, when plenty of people were advocating for it.
With regard to the recent legislative debacle involving warrantless wiretapping, Nadler said that the original Democratic House bill provided pretty much everything that they had been asked for by the Mike McConnell. But then the White House started smearing the Democrats with charges of being "weak on terror" and demanded major new changes, providing the administration with what Nadler termed "carte blanche" to spy without warrants or FISA court supervision. He said that Pelosi and Conyers thought the demands were outrageous but they decided to approve them anyhow lest they be--you guessed it--smeared with charges of being "weak on terror."
When it came time for Q&A, Nadler was bombarded with questions about impeachment, which took up probably 90% of the conversation. He said it would be "emotionally wonderful" to impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. That they are all three "richly impeachable" and have committed any number of impeachable offenses. And that impeachment is "morally justified and legally defensible." But he concluded that it would be "self indulgent" because "impeachment does nothing without a conviction in the Senate. And barring some unforeseen cataclysm, that's not going to happen." But that if he thought it would happen he'd be the "first in line" to start impeachment and that he's open to having his mind changed.
He went on to say that if the Judiciary Committee moved forward with impeachment they would spend the rest of the year doing what they're already doing--investigations. (He neglected to mention that their investigations have been stymied at every turn by the administration's open contempt for the Congress and refusal to comply with subpoenas.) He also said that an impeachment inquiry would probably be held in February, just when the presidential races will be really heating up, and that the most important thing for people to be focused on is getting a Democrat elected in 2008. And that anything to give substance to the Republican argument that Democrats were being "ideological" would backfire on the Democrats. Instead, Nadler suggested trying for a criminal indictment of Bush and Cheney after the election. He also mentioned the possibility of pursuing charges of inherent contempt against Miers et al. in the meantime.
The audience wasn't buying any of this, and Nadler was taken to task for placing political expediency above the Constitution. And it was pointed out that he couldn't know whether or not the evidence would be sufficient to persuade the Republicans to convict without holding an impeachment investigation and trial.
After the meeting I buttonholed Nadler and didn't let him get away--following him out the side door, into the elevator, up the stairs, down the sidewalk, etc. until he finally escaped into his car. I was less in his face than some other people but asked him harder questions. I basically got him to admit that if the Dems didn't have the balls to even start investigating impeachable offenses because they don't want to seem "ideological" it's hard to imagine they'll have the balls to send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Harriet Miers. And that referring the contempt charges to the court system was a dead end that would just run down the clock and let the Bush administration quietly off the hook. That without the power to enforce subpoenas, impeachment was the only way they were going to compel people like Rove and Cheney to ever testify. (He said--with an obvious lack of conviction--no, we're going to try really hard to get Rove to testify. Ha ha ha.) I also pointed out that if the Democrats think they can get the Republicans to vote against Bush on Iraq because the war is so unpopular, why couldn't they get the Republicans to vote against Bush/Cheney in an impeachment trial--because they're arguably even less popular during the war and have no political capital to offer Republican members of Congress. Nadler didn't really have an answer for this and said "okay, let's use the September vote as a test".
Nadler had been very confident in the meeting but during our conversation he had a hard time looking me in the eye. I think he's very strong at answering initial questions about impeachment and then a first round of follow-up questions. But if you can follow up to the follow-up questions you get him to the point where he runs out of pat answers and has to admit that his arguments don't ultimately hold water. I think the best way to move Nadler is in small meetings where people can make him follow his arguments to their logical conclusion and show that they don't hold water.