goddam it to hell (and, yes, i'm feeling VERY SHRILL!)...! we sit here and decry the iraqi parliament for taking august off and, while our constitution is in flames, our congress does the same exact goddam friggin' thing...

FORGET THE F*****G RECESS!
STICK TO YOUR JOBS AND PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION!

besides, if you go into recess, bush is just going to slip through a big pile of recess appointments anyway...

GET A FREAKIN' CLUE, CONGRESS!
THE COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Yes profmarcus...what the hell was the 2006 vote all about. To elect a bunch of lazy ass legislatures who would rather sit on the beach sipping Coronas then stick to the business of the country. And we thought our Democrat brothers and sisters were different. Seems unlikely.

Another nail. How nice. Wonder who's nail it is?

My happy thought for the day: if both Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi will be the President.

@nunya

If that really happened they'd have to call the fire department to check on the smoke coming out of the whitehouse: from all the documents being burned.

"I am asking everyone to email Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their U.S. Senators and Representative and urge them to cancel the August recess."

No one outside of Harry Reid's district can email him through his site. It's built into the system. It's that way for my rep, and I suspect that's the way for all of them.

I emailed my own rep a couple of hours ago, urging him to push for a vote before the recess. A Congressional recess doesn't (necessarily) mean a vacation: This is the time they're supposed to connect with their district's citizens.

"Waiting til September does allow Dems to package this issue (because let's face it, even the mainstream American public understands that contempt is bad) with the Iraq war vote to make the case that the administration is incompetent as a reason to get out of Iraq."

I see this rationale as well, Anna, but it would be a stronger House that went back into work after the recess by going into it with a successful vote on the contempt charges--especially after the Senate's block by the minority last week. This strength would also put them in a strong position for Iraq war votes.

Jake,

Cindy Sheehan has a snowballs chance in hell against Pelosi.

Roberta, you can just put in his office address as your own to contact him. I have had to do this a number of times on other issues. Another poster put me on to this! Happy emailing!

[I am cross-commenting this to the 3779 post.]

This is all I need to know about Jake D, from here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003746.php

Jake D., at July 23, 2007 4:20 PM, wrote:

"Since I don't think Bush has done anything worth impeachment (let alone Miers and Bolten following the directions of Bush in not producing documents / testimony), yes, I think Congress is going about it all wrong. Certainly, Feingold's censure resolution (again) is incorrect and even if I believed grounds for impeachment exist, I wouldn't go for censure. I also don't think there's any Constitutional Amendment I would propose [in response to my question, "Do you think our Constitution is broken and that there's no way to force the President's hand in anything except to pass a Constitutional amendment that would close whatever loopholes you believe exist?"]. Obviously, if I thought Bush had done something that he should be held accountable for, the election in 2004 was that moment. Short of convincing him to resign, the only way to legally get him is impeachment...."

It's up to all of you to decide if you feel a need, but I feel no need to argue details of Congress's fight with Bush anymore with someone who feels this way. (If any of you care, see my response 4 comments down, at July 23, 2007 5:26 PM.)

Goodbye then, Aaron G. Stock. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

I'm not leaving, I'm just not arguing details.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:51 PM

Yes. Nonetheless, Pelosi is still a pretender and a failed leader at this point, unlness of course you adore the corruption of the repubs and the unitary executive.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 6:03 PM

I am not from Pelosi's district. Let them decide who represents their interests. Indirectly, I might be able to root for Sheehan but it would depend who would replace Pelosi as Speaker of the House assuming the dems maintain control of the House after the '08 elections (a rather safe current assumption). I think Hoyer is next is line. He may be worse than Pelosi. The point is, the repubs and dems, for the real measure named results, are currently indistinguishable in they both contribute to corruption and failure all while BushCo takes a daily dump on the Constitution. No one is leading this country in the right direction.

I will let you know, tbhull, if Cindy Sheehan starts taking campaign donations on-line though.

tbhull,

Since I'm stalking Cindy I will be able to give you additional info after I share it with Matt and Rush.

Anyone can email Speaker Pelosi --

http://speaker.gov/blog/

She set this up to separate messages from her District from her role as Speaker.

Flood her in box!!

And for those who believe that Speaker Pelosi becomes President if Bush and Cheney are impeached, you're very wrong. The line of succession was established to handle the event of a nuclear attack in which key officials are killed.

With impeachment, if Cheney goes first, then Bush names a temp VP to fill the role until the next election. When Agnew was removed from office, Nixon named Ford a temp VP because he knew there would be no conflict over Ford's confirmation by the Senate, not because Ford was next in line.

If Bush is impeached, then Cheney becomes President and the VP office remains vacant until the next election. Now I don't know anyone who wants that to happen.

Pompano Pete Jr.

There's no such animal as "temp V.P." -- Ford was nominated by Nixon but did not assume any office or powers until he was confirmed by the full Congress -- the same procedure would happen here. Congress could simply refuse to confirm a replacement for Cheney, and then Pelosi would become President once Bush was removed. Even if Bush and Cheney were simultaneously impeached (same as if they were simultaneously killed), Pelosi still becomes President. Yet more good reasons to vote for Cindy Sheehan!!!

BTW: I have no problem with Cheney becoming President -- now you know at least one such person -- President Cheney would then nominate another V.P. (see procedure above).

My name's Jake D. and I like pee. Doop de doop and dee dee dee. My head's a box filled up with air. I may be stupid, but I don't care.

My name's Jake D. I can count to three. It don't take much to a-muse me.

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

I hear what the shriekers are saying about the August recess. And maybe someone else has already pointed this out: the purpose of the recess if to give legislators a chance to go home and get in touch with their constituencies. That's clearly an important thing. After all, they're the people's representatives and too much time inside-the-beltway can cause that fact to recede.

Already there is enough evidence now to impeach Gonzalez...I would suggest that if the Congress truly does care about the Constitution that it must compel full compliance with its subpoena soonest...not too laterest.

The congress needs a break to rest and recoup, and to hear what their constituents have to say. Stop comparing our congress to the Iraq parliament (or puppet government we are teaching to imitate us...gees!) because they're not comparable.

I'm surprised Pelosi didn't just announce she was taking contempt of congress off the table because these Dems seem to be just holding their breath on everything until the '08 elections. It is a coward who refuses to fight unless he is assured of victory before the fight begins, especially over something as important as the constitution or the lives of our soldiers. But thus it is with Pelosi and others who feel impeachment is a waste of time because we might not win, we don't have the votes, we should spend time "policy making".
There is no downside to impeachment and the votes to indict in the Senate would come after all the corruption and lies are exposed by the house investigations(no executive privilege to hide behind with impeachment proceedings, can't refuse subpoenas). Impeachment would weaken and tie the hands of Bush/Cheney possibly preventing them attacking Iran. Having weakened their support(when all the corruption we "don't already" know about comes out in the House) no one will want to support the president or his failed Iraq policies making it easier to withdraw from Iraq. In fact it will do more than anything tried by the Dems so far to get us out of Iraq.

But here's the kicker...DNC chairman Howard Dean told Rachel Maddow on Air America that in the next couple of months we(Senate Dems) could pull a few more republican votes to make 60 on withdrawing the troops but then the president would veto it and then we'd need 67 votes, which is impossible so we're not going to be able to do anything until we get a democrat in as president. When Rachel said that Kucinich and others are saying the Democrats aren't really doing enough, that they could with hold funding...Dean interrupted and said that would just leave the troops out there on their own and noone wants to be seen as not supporting the troops. Then he said that stopping the funding might force immediate troop withdrawal and al qaeda would take over the country.(WTF) If we withdraw too quickly, I mean you just can't shut it off like a spigot because if you withdraw too quickly, al qaeda could, they could just take over the country. I don't think most Americans want us to cut the funding so we're just gonna' have to wait for the next president.

This is the DNC chairman?? Needless to say he feels the same as Pelosi on impeachment. Maybe Bush is holding his family hostage for him to make such a statement about al qaeda.

Why is it being seen that Democrats can't get enough votes in the Senate to withdraw the troops from Iraq when it should be seen that Republicans can't get enough votes to continue funding the occupation.
Supporting the troops means protecting them, not forcing them to die needlessly for a failed strategy.
This bull about funding for much needed equipment like armoured humvees as well as coffins are just distractions for war profiteering. But I digress.

With Senate repubs obstructing almost all legislation from even coming up for a vote, the dems should just focus on 2 issues, withdrawing the troops from Iraq by defunding the occupation and impeachment. The republicans took you at your word when you said impeachment is off the table. They also are holding the troops hostage as blackmail to keep you funding the occupation. After all it is Bush who is saying, "Give me the funding I need to keep the troops in Iraq or I'll leave them there to die". Bush will only stop when he is forced to stop. Now Pelosi, Isn't the constitution and the lives of our soldiers worth the effort to put impeachment back on the table? Or will you let the dying continue, with the chance of adding thousands of murdered Iranians to to the list of the tens of thousands of murdered innocent Iraqis. Just remember, you could have stopped it.

The 25th amendment specifies that whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a new vice president who takes office upon confirmation by both houses of Congress. A vacancy in the office of the vice president can occur for a number of reasons: (1) the vice president is impeached and removed (hasn't happened yet); (2) the vice president resigns (it's happened twice); (3) the vice president dies (it's happened a few times, but not since 1912 I believe); (4) a vacancy occurs in the office of the president and the vice president becomes president. As we all know, the vice presidency became vacant when Spiro Agnew resigned in October 1973. Nixon nominated Gerald Ford, who took office in December of that year. When Ford succeeded to the presidency on Nixon's resignation, the vice presidency again became vacant.

According to a presidential succession act of, I think, around 1947 (which wasn't altered by the 25th amendment), the line of succession is as follows: (1) the vice president, (2) the speaker of the House, (3) the president pro tempore of the Senate (yes, that's Robert Byrd at the moment), and then (4) members of the president's Cabinet, with the secretaries whose departments were created earliest being first in line -- thus, (a) secretary of State, (b) secretary of the Treasury, and so on. During the Bush-Gore recount there was much fanciful speculation about possible succession scenarios if a president-elect were not named by Inauguration Day, and someone pointed out that in one such scenario the presidency could fall to the secretary of State -- but at that time the secretary of State was Madeleine Albright, who was constitutionally ineligible because of her being foreign-born.

One of the intents of the 25th amendment, I believe, was to keep in the line of immediate succession someone elected with/chosen by the president, so that the line of succession would never have to go past the vice president. But the line of succession as I've stated still exists and is implicitly in the minds of the executive branch at State of the Union time, when one cabinet secretary always absents him- or herself from the proceedings, lest a disaster strike the Capitol and obliterate everyone in the line of succession.

Finally, not too be too much of a pedant, but all of this talk about "if xxx is impeached then Pelosi (or someone) becomes president" is inaccurate because nobody succeeds to the presidency as a result of an impeachment itself -- it's the conviction that matters. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and both remained president.

As quite a few people have said before...

Pelosi won't become president by virtue of impeachment. Not a chance. No way will Repubs in the Senate vote to remove either Cheney or Bush if the end result is a Dem in the white house.

What's more likely, if impeachment actually comes to pass (and I think there's more likelihood that it will than before), is something like this:

1. Cheney resigns or is convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

2. By pre-arrangement, Bush nominates some relatively inoffensive Republican (RIR) as VP.

3. RIR is confirmed and takes office as VP.

4. Bush pardons Cheney.

5. Bush resigns or is convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

6. RIR is sworn in as president.

7. RIR pardons Bush.

8. Bush and Cheney retire to Paraguay.

Some deal like that, which leaves the executive branch in Republican hands, is the only way enough votes could be found in the Senate to remove these birds.

You read it here first.

I think Nancy wants the Republicans to go home and get an ear full.

They are still tossing crumbs to the base. Someone let them know that we can tell the difference between a Committee vote and a floor vote. If they leave before the full House vote on this it's just more proof that all their bluster is simply to run out the clock. They don't want to check BushCo's power because they've convinced themselves that the next President will be a Democrat, so they want preserve the status quo.

Won't they be surprised.

Posted by:
Date: July 25, 2007 3:48 PM

Apparently you don't know what happens during recess. Clue:

Congressmen use the recess to travel around their districts meeting with their constituents. That means you'll be saying a change in the attitudes of some Republicans when they return from the recess. Look for those with their ears burned off.

In other words: it isn't a vacation.

The only action by Congress that can truly restore Contitutional "checks and balances" is Impeachment. We have a "unitary-executive" president who is undermining the Constitution, ignoring laws, defying Congress and the Courts, and violating international treaties. In the face of unprecedented public opposition, he continues to escalate a war he elected at severe cost of life, dollars and ethical leadership. With anything less than impeachment, Congress is just blowing smoke.

Yes,please block that intruder as proposed by RBS. TPM has replaced TV and most newspapers for me because of the right wing polution present there. Don't let that troll ruin TPM for the rest of us.

PRESIDENT, VP COULD BOTH BE ARRESTED _NOW_ BY STATE OFFIICALS FOR WAR CRIMES, FISA VIOLATIONS OUTSIDE IMPEACHMENT

A prosecuted President and VP -- although not impeached -- would be replaced by the Speaker. It's not correct to say that the GOP could both [a] block impeachment and [b] prevent Polosi from becoming President. Once prosecuted -- while in office -- the President and VP would be jailed, retain their title, but be denied the power: Pelosi, after a State level prosecution of the President and VP, would become acting President.
Congress refuses to impeach. The States are not prohibited from prosecuting a sitting President. The State AGs, as they have done with the NSA litigation, can litigate this issue. The President and VP, if prosecuted for war crimes and FISA violations, would be hard pressed to find a credible defense. Again, although not impeached, it would be up to Pelosi to pardon or not pardon them; and all future Presidents.
Unlike impeachment where it would be best to impeach Cheney first, then leave his slot open; it