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?”
Hinchey, who is not one of the 14 current co-sponsors of Dennis Kucinich’s HR (see explanation at end of article) House Res 333, calling for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney, laughed and said “I think that this administration — both the President and the Vice-President — are the most impeachable in the history of our country.”
He went on to add that both Bush and Cheney “have engaged in activities that have not only made them impeachable, but they have engaged in activities that have violated, in a criminal way, very important federal laws.”
When asked what might be done to encourage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put Impeachment “back on the table,” Hinchey replied that he felt it already was, but that Pelosi “doesn’t have the votes to do it.” He added that the problem is more acute in the Senate, where the Democrats have only “the majority of one single vote.”
It should be noted, however, that the Senate has nothing to do with an Impeachment vote. That is the sole Constitutional purview of the House of Representatives. A vote in the Senate comes into play only after a vote to impeach by the House, and then a complete trial in the Senate, where evidence can be presented and witnesses, such as Bush and Cheney, can be placed on the stand, under oath.
Click below to hear the brief audio segment with Collins’s two quick questions of Hinchey (appx 1.5 mins):
[audio:http://BradBlog.com/audio/PeterBCollins_MauriceHinchey_071707.mp3]
A complete transcript of the short conversation follows below…
REP. MAURICE HINCHEY: I have some very serious questions about it and I think the way that it has been compromised is making it ineffective and, in fact, might make it…might make it not good.
PBC: I’m pleased to hear that. And we oppose it in its current form and I would love to see it go through with a little work and with a little more consumer protections, more protections for the average citizen.
HINCHEY: We’re working on it with Rush now.
PBC: Very good sir, I appreciate that. And finally, what is your posture on impeachment of Vice President Cheney?
HINCHEY: (laughs) I think that this administration — both the President and the Vice-President — are the most impeachable in the history of our country. They have engaged in activities that have not only made them impeachable, but they have engaged in activities that have violated, in a criminal way, very important federal laws…and there is no question, they have behaved very very badly.
PBC: And Congressman, just in a few seconds, how do we persuade my friend Nancy Pelosi to put it back on the table?
HINCHEY: Well, she is persuaded that way. It’s not her. It’s what she has to deal with here in the Congress. She just doesn’t have the votes to do it. And that particularly…that’s not only true in the House of Representatives, but it’s particularly true in the Senate. We only have the majority of one single vote.
PBC: Congressman, I’m out of town. Maurice Hinchey, thank you very much.
HINCHEY: Okay, thank you.
CORRECTIONS: We had originally described Kucinich’s Impeachment Resolution as HR 333. It’s actually House Res. 333, meaning it’s a resolution, not a bill, and thus requires only approval of the House. It does not require a matching bill in the Senate, or the signature of a President.
Every single representative and senator up for reelection (for years to come)will not be able to explain away their enabling of bush/cheney crimes. It couldn’t be any clearer, they have put power, profits, and party before their country. They should all pay the price if they don’t use their CONSTITUTIONAL POWER NOW to right this abomination of democracy! America is facing her darkest hour not from terrorist without, but from the muderous decay within. Just ask Abe, John, Bobby, Martin, Paul Wellstone, and now Pat Tillman.
Oh yeah, and don’t forget Raymond Lemme!
They still have the republican dictatorship mentality and the behavior that exclaims Big Brother is a Republican.
They will filibuster anything that attempts to stop the crimes of Cheney and his lackey Bush. Thus we may be able to impeach Cheney but we can’t convict him in the Senate. That is reality 101 until 2008.
The filibuster in the Senate is an indicator that a constitutional crisis in government is upon us.
Holt HR 811 has no hope of getting passed. It’s mirror image in the Senate, S. 559, still has the original text that made the source code public. It will be filibustered or vetoed.
We are dead in the water until the ’08 election when 21 republican senators are up for re-election, and all members of the House are up for re-election.
They still hope to deceive their constituents. I am doubtful that the gerrymandering corruption will save them any more than 10 seats.
Thus, after the ’08 election we may very well have a Senate that is filibuster proof (60 dems and non-neoCon indies), and we may have a democratic president and vice president to replace the republican dictatorship we are now plagued with.
Representative Hinchey was wrong about one thing. His party does not have a one vote majority in the Senate.
And less when one considers that Senator Johnson is incapacitated and is not voting. He may recover and he may not.
So it is 48 dems v 49 republicans. There are 2 independents, totally 99 voting Senators.
Sanders the independent from Vermont generally votes with the dems, and on social issues so does the other independent Lieberman.
However, on war issues Lieberman votes with the republicans which gives them the initial one vote majority.
Lieberman caucused with the dems so he could get chair of a committee. That gave them caucus majority and the chairs of all committees and the majority votes on all committees.
The dems are, even if Johnson returns to voting, 11 votes short of filibuster control.
They are 18 votes short of veto override control.
Control and majority are divergent concepts in the Senate. The House is a different animal where majority vote is controlling. However, even that is subject to the Senate filibuster because our national congress is a bi-cameral body, meaning every bill that goes to the president must be passed by both the Senate and the House.
Yes, Dredd. Every bill, but not every resolution. As in an Impeachment Resolution. But, of course, you knew that. Just thought I’d clarify again for readers as needed.
.
The best way to ensure that the Senate doesn’t have the votes to CONVICT is to NOT give them an Impeachment case to try.
Each time someone uses the argument concerning the Senate’s lack of votes to CONVICT, they are essentially arguing for the Senate to NOT have a case to try.
The best way to NOT win a race is to NOT run it, NO?
The Senate HASN’T even voted on an Impeachment case to try before them, and yet we’re being told that there AREN’T enough votes… (blinky-eyes)
There hasn’t even been an Impeachment yet.
The first step to winning a race is showing up for it, NO?
I’m sick of hearing how it can’t be won. Lets at least show up to this race, and then let’s worry how it can be run…
.
Hey Dredd, did they have a majority before starting proceedings against Nixon, or did those votes come to the table DURING THE PROCEEDINGS when criminal activities were more thoroughly exposed? And yes, I know Nixon resigned before the full house even voted on impeachment, but the process itself ruined his support. That’s a point to consider with these 100 year rule republicans! Subpoenas issued in impeachment proceedings can not be refused like the ones they are refusing now. How better to get to the truth than impeachment, and who is going to stand by exposed criminals to get reelected?
hmm compromised?
What does the old PFAW have to say about this I wonder?
It’s Revolting to me
Brad #5
Good.
I offer this link to further clarify for us and for the readers:
(About Bills).
Ancient #7
Good question.
Nixon explained his reason for resigning:
(Wash. Post, 1974, emphasis added). His own words show that congress is the key to presidential oversight.
Notice that he did not say he was resigning to do the right thing, he only admitted that he had lost power.
Power was his end-all and be-all. And so it is no surprise that Cheney / Bush are described as having “nixonian” behavioral patterns.
The House at that time was democratic majority. There were 21 democrats and 17 republicans on the Judiciary committee. Here is the way the charges were laid out:
(The History Place). There is no doubt in my mind that Cheney and Bush are both impeachable for the exact reasons Nixon was.
Nixon resigned because of the makeup of the Senate. He was informed that enough republicans would go along with the dems and he would be convicted.
The aftermath of Nixon’s behavior resulted in:
(Senate Election 1974). This shows how difficult it is to change the Senate.
Even after watergate and Nixon, they did get one more than a filibuster majority of 60 seats, ending up with 61. But they only gained a net of 3 seats.
So, yes, when Nixon resigned in the threat of impeachment, the Senate and the House had caucus majority in the House and in the Senate.
Afterward, however, they had filibuster stopping majority when the people spanked the republicans.
WHAT I WISH TO KNOW ARE THE FOLLOWING:
1. IS HE AN ADVOCATE OF HR 676-MEDICARE FOR ALL?
2. WHY DID HE VOTE TO FUND THE IRAQ WAR?
3. WHY DOESN’T HE ‘DO’ SOMETHING CONCRETE TO IMPEACH THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY?
There are many groups watching the above three issues closely. We are searching for candidates who will challenge ANY elected official who does not stand for these three issues. Currently, SEAN PENN IS CONSIDERING CHALLENGING ‘DO NOTHING’ MIKE THOMPSON IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (DISTRICT 01) FOR 2008.
WHILE WE’RE AT IT..before anyone say’s good things about Obama….take a REAL LOOK AT HIS ‘AFFORDABLE’ HEALTH CARE PLAN!! IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OLD REPUBLICAN ‘HEALTH CARTEL’ CONVOLUTED DRIVEL WE NOW HAVE! THIS MAN IS A FAKE!
I am from Australia and am reasonably up to date with the goings on in US politics.
However, I would appreciate if anyone can enumerate the matters for which (apart from being conspicuosly injudicious and self-serving, and smug to boot) Bush and Cheney could be impeached (including primary details of proof).
The questions for Representatives like Maurice Hinchey would better be phrased like:
Do you not know that the Senate can’t vote unless the House convicts first?
Do you not know that the hearings in the House Judiciary Committee would either develop a record so vivid that no Republican could be reelected if he voted against impeachment, or the impeachment process should be dismissed?
These fools need to quit playing stupid. This is about maipulating intelligence to get official clearance to commit mass murder and treason against American armed forces and our Treasury. This is not about making honest mistakes, it’s about criminal acts.
sean again
Right off the top of my head, there’s the Downing Street Memo as proof, for certain, and their own public admissions of other crimes. There is a great deal of work on the multifarious grounds for impeachment of both online. Google it.
IMPEACH THE ENTIRE CONGRESS/SENATE..except for the 5 elected officials who REFUSED TO VOTE FOR FUNDING on the 150 BILLION WAR debacle:
They are-Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, B. Obama, and Christopher Dodd!
ALL THE OTHERS ARE LYING – THEY ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE WAR-AND DO NOT WISH TO IMPEACH ANYONE! THIS INCLUDES CONYERS, Pelosi, Reid, ET AL. As long as they fund the war, they are supporting the Bush Crime Family!! Vietnam was ENDED by a refusal to fund it!