In an interview this weekend at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) supported Brown’s argument, stating that Obama has a “Marxist background.” But, Rohrabacher added, the impeachment effort is just too crazy an idea for him to support:

I think that’s total nonsense and counterproductive, and quite often, people who are making statements like that are trying to put themselves in a position to raise money from the conservative movement. And any talk of that right now is ridiculous.

The fact is that the American people elected Barack Obama. They elected him! We got to face that. He is an elected President of the United States. We disagree with everything he wants to do, but he has to be treated as the President of the United States, and he has not at this time committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Rohrabacher did leave the door open to future impeachment. Obama’s involvement in Chicago-style politics means he “could be doing things that are questionable enough that they could lead to his impeachment,” the congressman said. “But for right now, that’s a ridiculous discussion.” Watch it:

It’s telling that for Rohrabacher –- who once said global warming was caused by dinosaur farts and dismissed torture as “hazing pranks from some fraternity” –- impeaching Obama is an idea that is just too absurd to support.

The conservative blog Hot Air similarly denounces Brown’s effort, calling it one of the “worst -– and worst defended –- ideas at WCPAC.”

House Speaker Pro Tempore Harry Cato of Travelers Rest said he expects impeachment to “dominate” discussion at this weekend’s annual House GOP Caucus retreat in Myrtle Beach. […]

“I think just because of the general nature of how this outing always works, it’s usually dominated by one or two issues and I think impeachment will be the dominant issue,” he said.

“He left the state without anyone knowing where he was,” state Rep. Greg Delleney said, adding, “That was a dereliction of duty as far as I was concerned.” The state Constitution allows officials to be impeached for “serious crimes or serious misconduct in office.”

Titus said Wednesday that no meeting has been scheduled. But she said she hopes to hear Bybee out — and to share her concerns.

“I’d like to hear from him if he thinks he made the right decision interpreting the law and doing the job as he saw it defined,” Titus said Wednesday. “But I also will not hesitate to make it clear to him that I absolutely disagree with his interpretation. The United States is not a country of torture.” […]

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley’s office was also contacted by Bybee’s representative in April. Berkley’s spokesman said the two have not met, and he was unsure whether they would.

“This was torture, in her mind,” spokesman David Cherry said. “I don’t know if there’s anything he could say to her at this point that would change her thinking.”

While Bybee is interested in talking to Nevada’s delegation, he refuses to respond to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) invitation to give testimony before the committee. A New York Times editorial today again calls for the impeachment of Bybee. “The memos he wrote or signed made it clear that he was not fit to make judgments about the law and the Constitution,” the NYT writes. “Congress should remove him.”

The one thing I disagree with you and David [Gergen] about is I do think there’s a distinction between going back and prosecuting in criminal courts the actors who were involved in these memos and letting Judge Bybee continue to sit on a court one step removed from the Supreme Court. He’s acting and listening to cases, making judgments of others, and we know he authorized things that were illegal under U.S. law and violated the U.S. obligations under international treaties.

If he would do the right thing, he should just simply resign. If he doesn’t, I think this is one matter where he continues to sit — he doesn’t have the moral or legal authority to continue to do that. And I think a simple matter would be to remove him from office.

Podesta added that he suspects the White House doesn’t agree with the call for impeaching Bybee. The other panelists — David Gergen and former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein — disagreed with the call for impeachment. Watch it:

Also, Podesta delivered a letter this morning to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), laying out the case for impeaching Bybee.

The letter (pdf) informed Conyers that ThinkProgress has collected nearly 20,000 signatures from concerned citizens “who have expressed their deep-felt and sincere desire to see that Judge Bybee is held to account for authorizing torture.” Podesta’s letter affixed the names of everyone who signed our petition calling on Congress to begin impeachment hearings against Bybee. (It required 71 three-column double-sided pages.)

Thanks for all your help! This could not have been possible without the support of all of you who signed the petition. If you have not already done so, please consider joining the effort by clicking here.

Read Podesta’s full letter below:

Dear Chairman Conyers,

I am writing to ask you to consider holding impeachment hearings against 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee, should he decide not to voluntarily resign.

As you are well aware, Judge Bybee is the only architect of the Bush administration’s torture program to currently hold public office.

A legal memorandum signed by Judge Bybee when he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel and recently released by the Obama administration approved the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques, including waterboarding, slamming a detainee into a wall, depriving a detainee of sleep for up to eleven days at a time, and trapping a prisoner in a “confinement box” with insects in order to induce terror. The techniques endorsed by Judge Bybee’s memoranda violated U.S. law and our commitments under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

On March 13, 2003, Judge Bybee was confirmed by a 74-19 vote in the Senate. During his Senate hearings, Mr. Bybee stonewalled the Judiciary Committee when asked about his role in national security matters. He said at the time, “As an attorney at the Department of Justice, I am obliged to keep confidential the legal advice that I provide to others in the executive branch.” A number of Senators have now acknowledged that, had they known then what they now know, Judge Bybee would not have been confirmed.

Jay Bybee currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals, one level removed from the U.S. Supreme Court. He has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet, having issued opinions that violate the Constitution and concealed relevant aspects of his legal views and professional conduct from the Senate, Bybee has neither the legal nor moral authority to sit in judgment of others.

My organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has collected signatures from approximately 20,000 Americans (see attached) who have expressed their deep-felt and sincere desire to see that Judge Bybee is held to account for authorizing torture. It is unacceptable to allow him to continue to serve in his current role. Judge Bybee should resign, but if he fails to do so, I urge you to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

Sincerely,

John Podesta
President and CEO, Center for American Progress Action Fund

What’s scary to me, Chris, is that one of them got a lifetime appointment on a federal bench. Yikes! You know, a lawyer that’s responsible for this kind of advice that clearly went too far in terms of stretching what our law is. It worries me that he’s sitting on the federal bench right now.

She then said she doesn’t want to “look in the rearview mirror.” Asked by host Chris Wallace whether she would favor the impeachment of the judge, Jay Bybee, McCaskill responded, “I don’t know. I think we have to look at it.” Watch it:

Steve Benen writes, “The question shouldn’t be whether to impeach Jay Bybee, but rather, how quickly the impeachment hearings can begin.”

These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him.

The California Democratic Party, which is holding its convention next weekend, will consider “a resolution from grassroots activists calling for Jay Bybee’s impeachment.”

The “tea party” protests nationwide are being coordinated by the conservative public relations firm Freedom Works, which is run by former Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). The tea parties are also being supported by Newt Gingrich, through his organization American Solutions For Winning the Future. Members of Congress, such as Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), have appeared at previous rallies. In addition, Fox News’ Glenn Beck promotes the protests, and has launched a website publicizing the events.

“It’s inappropriate and it’s not being hung,” she said. She said that when asked about the issue yesterday, the White House tree decorations were not complete. “We reviewed the ornament along with all the [other] ornaments, and Mrs. Bush deemed it inappropriate for the holiday tree.”

Lawrence responded, “Oh, dear. This doesn’t really surprise me. But it’s disappointing that I won’t get to see it on the tree.”

NADLER: If we had a just system and it weren’t overly political, the president would be impeached. I think he has committed impeachable offenses.

Watch it:

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said that he may allow Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to present his impeachment articles against Bush before the August recess. “We’re not doing impeachment, but he can talk about it,” he said.

Digg It!

While the House tabled previous articles of impeachment against Bush offered by Kucinich, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested this morning that the Judiciary Committee may “have some hearings” on Kucinich’s new impeachment resolution.

Transcript:

SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio rise?

KUCINICH: Thank you, madam speaker. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 9, I here by give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows. An article of impeachment of President George W. Bush. Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the final article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

An article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and the people of the United States of America in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article one: Deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article 2, Section 3 of the constitution, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq weapons of mass destruction to fraudulently obtain support for and authorization of the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization then acting in his capacity under Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution as commander-in-chief to commit U.S. troops to combat in Iraq.

QUESTIONER: I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. McCain, to ask you a question. Part one is regards to the articles of impeachment brought up by Kucinich for Bush. What your stance is on that, regards to manipulated intelligence to form the policy. [...]

McCAIN: First of all, I do not agree with quote, articles of impeachment, and I can assure the majorities of both parties in both houses would not agree either.

Yet in 1999, he voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. At the time, McCain stressed that a president must be held “accountable to the rule of law“:

Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they are vested with so much more authority and power than the rest of us. We have a right; indeed, we have an obligation, to hold them strictly accountable to the rule of law. [...]

It is self-evident to us all, I hope, that we cannot overlook, dismiss or diminish the obstruction of justice by the very person we charge with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is self-evident to me.

Even a “good friend” of McCain’s, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), has raised the possibility of impeachment if the Bush administration attacks Iran. McCain is likely avoiding this subject because he too wants to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Digg It!

You know, I have heard a lot of reasons over the years as to why George W. Bush should be impeached. For them to leave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this state, its leadership in this sorry condition and to have no capacity apparently or will to protect the American consumer – that is alone to me sufficient reason to impeach a president who has made this agency possible and has ripped its guts out in its ability to protect the American consumer. It’s insane what is going on here.

Watch it:

Digg It!

“The minute the leadership said ‘this is dead on arrival’ I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I’m coming back with it,” Kucinich vowed in an interview with the Sleuth this week. “It’s not gonna die. Because I’ll come back with more articles. Not 35, but perhaps 60 articles.“

Watch the full interview with Kucinich here.

This is just another example of the Democratic leadership in the House indulging trivial and silly conspiracy theories from left-wing bloggers, rather than working with Republicans to deal with the real issues facing the American people.

But impeachment is more popular than Boehner would like to admit. A July 2007 poll found that 46 percent of voters in favor beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Furthermore, a 2005 poll said 42 percent of voters say that “if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.”

UPDATE: Video of a portion of Kucinich’s speech:

UPDATE: “Nine out of 23 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee favor starting impeachment hearings against Vice-President Dick Cheney. Six of the nine are co-sponsors of H.R. 799, which contains three articles of impeachment,” according to CounterPunch.

Tomorrow, I will deliver these names to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee with a letter to my friend, Chairman Conyers, calling for hearings. I will ask my colleagues to sign this letter … Continuing every day for months, I will publish in the Congressional Record several thousand names of supporters who signed up.

History demands that we take action, because the case against Vice President Cheney is far stronger than the illegality surrounding Watergate.

Watch Wexler’s speech:

“In the history of our nation, we have never encountered a moment where the actions of a President or a Vice President have more strongly demanded the use of the power of impeachment,” Wexler said last night.

Digg It!

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice. [...]

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

Wexler explained that he launched his website after traditional media outlets rejected an op-ed he had written with his colleagues Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI):

We laid out precisely why the House Judiciary Committee should open up hearings. … And we set out in an op-ed why we should do it, and none of the major newspapers in the country — the New York Times or the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times — they chose not to run it.

I thought it was a fairly significant statement by the mainstream media that when members of the House Judiciary Committee lay out a credible claim for why impeachment hearings should begin regarding the Vice President of the United States, and they refuse to run it, then we decided well we would start this website…and see what the feeling was in terms of mainstream America.

Listen to it:

Wexler said he has been “astonished” by the outpouring of support — over 100,000 have signed up in five days. He said he plans to write a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) in early January, asking him to begin start impeachment hearings.

“This is not the lunatic fringe — this is mainstream America,” Wexler said. These are “people that believe in the very patriotic vision, and they’re all very upset about what they see as the abuse of power by this administration and the failure of Congress to hold them accountable.”

Digg It!