June, 08 2017, 03:45pm EDT
Impeachment Hearings: Time to Start the Process
James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
WASHINGTON
James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
Impeachment is a process, and the time to begin is now.
June 8, 2017. We should all remember this date, because it was the day when former FBI Director James Comey (a Republican) confirmed under oath what many of us already suspected and what the press has reported--that Donald Trump asked him to drop the investigation into disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. Period. Let's be clear about what this means: the President of the United States knew that the FBI was investigating his associates, TRIED TO STOP THAT INVESTIGATION, and then fired the person who wouldn't stop it. This is obstruction of justice, a federal crime, and an impeachable offense. (See our explainer on obstruction of justice here.)
Don't believe us? Then trust Laurence Tribe, a former Supreme Court clerk, constitutional scholar, and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. His assessment: "The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice."
Why does impeachment exist? For times like these.
As Americans, we cannot afford to have a President who breaks the law. No one is above the law, not even the President--and the job of the Presidency is too important to trust it to someone who doesn't respect the basic rules of our democracy.
Impeachment is enshrined in the constitution. James Madison argued impeachment was "indispensable" to protect against the "incapacity, negligence or perfidy" of the president. The Constitution provides that "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Yes, obstruction of justice is one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors." President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. And the very first article of impeachment against Nixon was similarly obstruction of justice. ObstructionofJustice is absolutelyan impeachable offense.
What is Impeachment? It's a process--a long process.
After Watergate, in July of 1973, a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives introduced H.Res 513, legislation described as "Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." It took three months for the House Judiciary Committee to even begin considering impeachment. It took more than a year before Nixon left office, before the full House had even voted, and the Senate hadn't taken any action.
Bottom line: impeachment takes time. So if you want it done, you've got to get it started. And, it starts with impeachment hearings. Here's how the impeachment process works:
The House acts first, then the Senate. Both the House and Senate have a role to play. First, the House decides whether or not to impeach the President (essentially whether to "charge" the president). Each "charge" is referred to as an "article of impeachment." If the House votes to impeach, then the Senate holds a trial on each article of impeachment against the president.
Impeachment is only the beginning--it's not a conviction. It's worth noting here the difference between two terms that are often used interchangeably but do not mean the same thing. Being "impeached" only means that the House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Being "removed from office" means that the Senate voted to convict the President.
No President has ever been impeached and then convicted by the Senate and removed from office. President Andrew Johnson (in 1868) and Bill Clinton (in 1998/1999) were impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate; Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.
Your easy to use, step-by-step impeachment guide:
- A Member of the House introduces a House Resolution calling for impeachment. Literally any House member can do this. The legislation will come in the form of a House Resolution (a.k.a. "H. Res" followed by a number). For Nixon, the final resolution was H. Res 803 ; for Clinton, it was H. Res 611. House Resolutions don't need to be passed by the Senate or signed by Trump--they just have to pass the House.
- A committee holds impeachment hearings to investigate. After introduction, the legislation will be referred to a House committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee (as was the case for both Nixon and Clinton). The Judiciary Committee may conduct its own investigation, or accept the investigation of another party. For Nixon, the Judiciary Committee eventually began a months-long investigation. For Clinton, the Judiciary Committee simply accepted an existing investigation conducted by independent counsel Ken Starr.
- The committee votes. Once an investigation has concluded, the committee--again, in most cases, House Judiciary--will vote on the article or articles of impeachment. They can do this together as one resolution or separately for each article. In the case of Nixon, the Judiciary Committee approved the articles of impeachment with strong bipartisan support. For Clinton, the Committee approved impeachment mostly on a party line vote.
- The full House votes.If the Judiciary Committee approves one or more articles of impeachment, the next step is for the full House to vote either on the resolution or on individual articles. It takes just a simple majority in the House to impeach a President. If that happens, the process moves to the Senate.
- The Senate holds a trial. The Senate receives evidence and hears testimony, like in a court trial, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Members of the House make the case for impeachment, and the President is defended by his counsel.
- The full Senate votes. Once the trial concludes, the Senate meets in closed session to deliberate before it takes a final vote. A two-thirds majority (67 votes if all Senators are present) is required to convict the President and remove him from office. This is an extremely high bar that was set that way intentionally, given the gravity of removing a president from office
Impeachment is a Political Process: Republicans Won't Get the Process Started Without Pressure from You
Despite the evidence from Mr. Comey's testimony that Trump obstructed justice, the hard truth is that Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. Some Republicans did join the call for a special prosecutor, who was appointed on May 17. This would have never happened without the immense pressure from the public and from Indivisible groups around the country. But politically speaking, most Republicans are not yet close to the point where they'll call for--or even allow--impeachment proceedings to begin. This is especially true for Republican leaders who control the process and have fallen in line with Trump on basically every issue so far.
We Need Both an Independent Commission and to Begin the Impeachment Process. What we do know is that Donald Trump obstructed justice. That is enough to begin the impeachment process, and your Representative should be calling for it. But there is still much left that we don't know, especially about connections between Trump associates and the Russian government. That's why it's important to call for both an independent commission, and to begin the impeachment process against Trump for the violations that we do know about. Remember, since the impeachment process will take time, we can still learn more if there is an independent commission continuing to investigate.
Until We Get Impeachment, Continue to Resist the Trump Agenda
While we pressure Republicans to begin impeachment hearings, we must continue to oppose Trump's agenda more broadly. One of the best ways to increase the chances of Trump's impeachment is to drive a wedge between him and his party,by making it clear that Republicans can't accomplish their agenda in Congress as long as Trump is President.
Even as new information about the Trump camp's ties to Russia continues to come to light with each new week, the Administration and its allies in Congress are pushing forward with their terrible legislative agenda. The House is voting to gut financial consumer protections. Mitch McConnell is maneuvering in the Senate to fast track their health care bill. Especially given the dark cloud that now hangs over the Administration, it is more important than ever to stop every piece of the Trump agenda. In doing so, we stop the worst damage to our country and our institutions while ramping up the pressure for Republicans to split with Trump.
What You Can Do to Stand Indivisible
First and foremost, impeachment is a long game. We won't be getting hearings anytime soon, and even once we do, the impeachment process is likely to take a long time. That's why, in addition to opposing the Trump agenda more broadly, we need to be doing two things at once:
- Continue the push for an independent commission. Obstruction of justice should be enough for impeachment, but if a commission or the special prosecutor uncover further wrongdoing, that only bolsters the case, especially in this hyperpartisan environment.
- Call on your Representative to support impeachment resolutions calling for impeachment, like the one Rep. Al Green will introduce shortly. An impeachment resolution is step one in the process.
Impeachment won't happen overnight--it will be a long-term fight. And we will continue to demand that Congress do more, especially as more information comes to light. Until then, we must continue to focus on stopping Republicans and Trump from advancing other parts of their agenda, including repealing the ACA, attacking immigrants and people of color, threatening the environment, repealing consumer financial protections, and attacking reproductive rights, to name only a few. The list of things we need to protect is long, but if we stick together, if we stand indivisible, we will win.
Sample Call Dialogue
Caller: Good morning/afternoon! Can you let me know [Senator/Representative Hernandez]'s position on creating an independent commission to get all the facts regarding the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia?
- [For House members] A Swalwell-Cummings bill called the Protecting our Democracy Act (HR 356) would establish an independent commission to investigate Russian interference, but Republican leadership is refusing to even hold a vote on it. There is currently "discharge petition" to force a vote on the Protecting our Democracy Act. Over 190 members have already signed on (updated count here)--Will the Representative join them?
- [For Senators] Senator Ben Cardin's bill, S.27, would establish a commission of independent experts to examine the facts regarding Russia and the 2016 election. It currently has 26 co-sponsors (updated count here). Will the Senator join them?
Option 1: Supports
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports H.R. 356 / S.27.
Caller: That's great! Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports creating an independent commission. It appears that by firing FBI Director Comey, Trump may have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Option 2: Opposes
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] opposes creating an independent commission. The Department of Justice already appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. We should let that investigation run its course.
Caller: That's not enough. Mueller's appointment was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts. I am disappointed that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] would choose to protect Trump rather than listen to his/her constituents
Option 3: Dodges / Has No Position
Staffer: Thank you for calling! I don't know what the Senator/ Representative's position is.
Caller: That's disappointing to hear--this is a critical issue for our democracy. Does [Senator/Representative Hernandez] think it's more important to protect Trump than listen to his/her own constituents? The appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts.
Staffer: I didn't know that but I'm happy to take down your concerns.
Caller: Here's my concern: By firing FBI Director Comey, Trump appears to have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
LATEST NEWS
2024 Still on Track to Be First Full Year That Breached 1.5°C
"No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts," said one climate scientist.
Dec 09, 2024
Data from the first 11 months of 2024 reaffirmed that the globe is set to pass a grim mile stone this year, according to the European Union's earth observation program.
The E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a report Monday that November 2024 was 1.62°C above the preindustrial level, making it the 16th month in a 17-month stretch during which global-average surface air temperature breached 1.5°C. November 2024 was the second-warmest November, after November of last year, according to C3S.
"At this point, it is effectively certain that 2024 is going to be the warmest year on record and more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level," according to a Monday statement from C3S. With data for November in hand, the service estimates that global temperature is set to be 1.59°C above the pre-industrial level for 2024, up from 1.48°C last year.
C3S announced last month that 2024 was "virtually certain" to be the hottest year on record after October 2024 hit 1.65°C higher than preindustrial levels.
"This does not mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious climate action is more urgent than ever," said Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S.
Under the 2015 Paris agreement, signatory countries pledged to reduce their global greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn't constitute failure to reach the agreement's goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades—however, "breaches of 1.5°C for a month or a year are early signs of getting perilously close to exceeding the long-term limit, and serve as clarion calls for increasing ambition and accelerating action in this critical decade."
Additionally, a recent paper in the journal Naturewarned of irreversible impacts from overshooting the 1.5ºC target, even temporarily.
Climate scientist and volcanologist Bill McGuire reacted to the news Monday, saying: "Average temperature for 2024 expected to be 1.60°C. A massive hike on 2023, which itself was the hottest year for probably 120,000 years. No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts."
The update comes on the heels of COP29, the most recent U.N. climate summit, which many climate campaigners viewed as a disappointment. During the summit, attendees sought to reach a climate financing agreement that would see rich, developed countries contribute money to help developing countries decarbonize and deal with the impacts of the climate emergency. The final dollar amount, according to critics, fell far short of what developing countries need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Anchor Rebuked for Claiming Popular, Cost-Saving Medicare for All Won't Happen
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," said one progressive journalist. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick."
Dec 09, 2024
Advocates for a government-run healthcare program applauded U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna for pushing back during a Sunday morning interview in which ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz casually dismissed Medicare for All as a proposal that has no chance of ever being implemented.
Khanna (D-Calif.) spoke to Raddatz days after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City—an event that brought to the surface simmering, widespread fury over the for-profit health insurance industry's denial of coverage, high deductibles, and other obstacles placed in the way of Americans when they try to obtain both routine and emergency healthcare.
The congressman said he was "not surprised" by the response to the killing, in which the suspect has yet to be named or found by authorities five days later.
"I mean, people are getting denied cancer treatment," said Khanna. "It's absurd in this country, what's going on."
Raddatz noted that Khanna last week reposted a message from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the social media platform X, in which the senator pointed to the country's exorbitant spending on healthcare administrative costs—15-25% of total healthcare expenditures, or as much as $1 trillion per year.
"'Healthcare is a human right. We need Medicare for All,'" Raddatz read before adding her own perspective: "That's not really going to happen, so what would you say to those Americans who are frustrated right now?"
Khanna quickly pushed back, saying he believes Sanders is "absolutely right."
"I believe we can make Medicare for All happen," he said, pointing out that Sanders was responding to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk, who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead a proposed body called the Department of Government Efficiency, denouncing high healthcare administrative costs last week.
That spending is far higher than the 2% spent by Medicare on administration and results in lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and other poor health outcomes.
Skepticism of the for-profit healthcare system from one of Trump's closest right-wing allies mirrors public support for Medicare for All, which comes from across the political spectrum.
In 2020, a Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans backed at single national health plan to provide coverage for all Americans, including more than a third of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican, and 88% of Democrats. Another American Barometer survey in 2018 found 52% of Republicans supported Medicare for All.
Khanna said Musk's comments indicate that "finally, after years, Sanders is winning this debate and we should be moving towards Medicare for All."
Kenneth Zinn, former political director of National Nurses United, asked, "Who is Martha Raddatz to say" that Medicare for All—which would cost $650 billion less than the current for-profit system, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis—is "not really going to happen."
"This is how the corporate media tries to shut down the discussion or narrow the parameters. The majority of Americans support Medicare for All," said Zinn.
David Sirota of The Leverapplauded Khanna's "direct pushback" against the commonly accepted assumption that expanding the popular and efficient Medicare program to all Americans is an impossibility.
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," he said. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick. Ro called bullshit—which is the right response. [Medicare for All] won't happen overnight, but it CAN eventually happen."
In 2019, Khanna himself slammed "Beltway pundits" for dismissing Medicare for All as "unrealistic and too expensive" even as the U.S. was shown to spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"Points well-taken, Congressman," said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner on Sunday. "The United States is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare. It is immoral, unacceptable, and costly not to have Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Bans Known Carcinogens Used in Dry Cleaning, Other Industries
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," said one environmental campaigner.
Dec 09, 2024
The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.
According to the Washington Post:
The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.
Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.
The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."
The Timesreports:
TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.
Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.
Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.
Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."
While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.
In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular