Impeachment advocates have fallen into a trap

The trick is to know when you've entered another RNC maze to nowhere.

Congratulations to Vermont for taking an important step. Ref You're going to realize what's going on after I briefly touch on the ruse.

David Swanson coverage; unable to get a confirmation message on comments. Please post a link to the information below so others can see what's needed.

[ Images: Outside Capitol Sanders Office ]

* * *

Summary of the petition delivery: Hastert wasn't around. It was a Monday. And his staff wasn't all that impressive. Video: Lazy scumbags in Hatert's office.

Fast forward -- Here's the problem:

After meeting with Hastert’s staff, Tenney delivered copies of the resolutions to Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, where an impeachment probe must originate in Congress.Click

No!

The purpose of this isn't to fall into the trap of "waiting for" or "deferring to" "the committee."

Rather, the resolutions must -- as was done with Swayne -- force the Congress to vote on the matter.

Remember what was done during Swayne: The Florida proclamation directed/asked the full House to vote on the proclamation, then it went to committee.

Then -- here's the key -- despite the Committee not agreeing over what happened with Swayne -- as is likely the case going to be with Bush -- the Judiciary Committee then had to provide the results to the full House for a second vote.

We have to figure out how to do the same: Force the House to confront this, and not bury it in Committee.

* * *

Add these to the Impeachment Proclamation Lessons Learned.

* * *

Lessons of 1 May 2006

1. The goal for now is to force the full House to vote. Do not fall into the trap of thinking, "This will or will not be deferred to committee." Refocus on the real objective: To get this on the House floor for a debate/vote. That's it. What happens after that is what the voters are being given the chance to see: Whether the House does or doesn't confront the issues. For now, it doesn't matter what the Committee does or doesn't do.

2. The goal is to remind the House that the Committee and RNC control is not relevant. The objective here isn't to "get the committee" to look at it. They've already done that and have done nothing. Rather, the goal here is to bypass the Committee by forcing the full House to vote -- as they did with Swayne -- whether to investigate.

3. The long term goal isn't as important: The immediate goal is to force the House to vote. Remember the key here isn't that we immediately want to "remove the President" -- rather, we have a more important short-term goal: Forcing the full House to vote without waiting for the Judiciary Committee.

4. There is precedent for bypassing the Committee-process and forcing the House to vote on this issue. Recall the lessons of Swayne:

A. The Florida State proclamation directed the House to vote on an investigation;

B. The Florida State proclamation directed the House to order an investigation;

C. Even though the House Judiciary Committee could not agree, they send the result of that investigation back to the House for a second vote

D. Even though the House Judiciary Committee could not agree, the full House voted a second time, and impeached

E. Key lesson of Swayne: It doesn't matter who does or does not control the Judiciary Committee: The State proclamation can set the framework to direct the House to vote up or down -- on whether to investigate; and then vote a second time on the non-agreed to conclusions on whether to impeach.

F. The lesson of Swayne: We do not have to control the Committee; rather, we from the States can tell the House to vote well before the 2006 election -- and we can use that vote -- up or down on whether to have an investigation -- as a needed input in deciding, "Is this leadership serious about asserting their oath?" If the conclusion is, "No, they're not serious, then we can mobilize the non voters to cast ballots for leaders that will assert the rule of law.

* * *

What needs to happen

Need to re-engage with the House leadership. Tell them to do what was done with Swayne: Have a vote on the floor of the House. House leadership needs to explain why Swayne precedent is getting ignored. Burden is on the RNC.

Then we need to hear specific comments as to why they won't do what they -- under the House rules, and consistent with the Swayne Precedent -- are supposed to do: Have a vote.

Here are the questions

1. Why isn't the full House voting on this?

2. Why isn't the House voting on an investigation before burying this in committee?

3. Why is the Precedent of Swayne -- that of the House voting on whether to have an investigation -- getting ignored?

4. Why is the RNC afraid of having a vote to decide whether or not to have fact finding?

Here's what needs to happen

A. Priviledge: Inquire as to why all House business isn’t stopping to focuse on this most important issue: Impeachment. This is a matter of privilege. All other House action stops. If it's Monday, they get to work immediately. This, "Oh, it's Monday and not at work"-argument is non-sense. They have a job to do. Remind America: We are paying them to ignore the freely chosen House rules that they took at oath -- when swearing an oath to the Constitution -- to follow. Jefferson's Manual says this is privilege. The House leadership shows they aren't taking their job seriously.

B. Find out what needs to be corrected in the proclamation: Will the House Speaker require a state proclamation, or will he stop all business based on a petition alone? The issue at this point is to focus on what is needed: What specific language in the proclamation will the House need to do what was done in Swayne? Based on this feedback, these lessons need to be applied to the Vermont lessons-learned list here: [ Click ]

C. What specific language is required in the Illinois and California Proclamations – already relying on House Rule 603 – to ensure that the House takes a floor vote immediately? Again, the issue isn’t to “force them to vote yes.” Rather, we have to find out which specific language in the proclamation will make it clear that the job of the Congress is to vote on this resolution and order an investigation – as was done with Swayne – as opposed to what is now happening: Possible deferral to the Committee.

D. Review the Swayne Precedent from 1903, and re-read it. Find out exactly what was done to ensure that the House voted on that impeachment.

E. Make it clear that even if the House Judiciary can't agree -- as they did with Swayne -- that the Committee needs to produce a timely result.

F. Make it clear that we already have the information. Conyers has everything documented. we don't need to spend endless days/months investigation. We've seen the non-sense with Phase II. Rather, we need a vote in the House: Are you going to investigate or not? [Yes or no]

G. Remind the public -- whatever the House does -- that they have six months to digest what the House does or doesn't do. If the House goes on "endless investigations" -- as was done in the Senate with Phase II -- then the public needs to make adverse inferences: They are stonewalling, playing games, and not serious about protecting the Constitution. Bluntly, we need new leadership.

H. Remind the Congressional leadership we have six months. If they don't immediately take a vote, we're introducing for public debate outside Congress a New Constitution. This can be done outside Article V, and does not require a Constitutional Convention. That effort has already started. It will mandate they take action, and strip them of the power to delay as they are doing.

I. The burden is on the Congress to justify why We the People should have confidence in them. They have shown no reason to believe them. Remind the Congressional leadership in both parties that if they stonewall, or do something not consistent with Swayne -- like burying this in committee, or not taking a vote to order an investigation and produce a result well before the 2006 election -- then we the People may lawfully change the Constitution and not "wait around" for the November 2006 election. This process has already started.

* * *

Remember: The whole purpose of the State proclamation is to

1. make the House Judiciary Committee's vote, conclusions, leadership, and input irrelevant; and

2. force the full House to go on the record well before the 2006 election whether:

A. They are serious about their oath

B. Whether they will take a vote to find facts

C. whether they can quickly respond to lawful direction to review, investigation, and protect the Constitution

D. Whether they will comply with the House rules and precedent

E. Or whether they want to do more of what we already have: Disregard for civilized rules of society; no respect for the rule of law; and complete recklessness when it comes to providing leadership to preserve the integrity of the American system of governance.

The entire burden of proof rests with the RNC. If they fail to direct a vote, or they come up with excuses, then they have shown the world they are in rebellion against the rule of law, and that they should be outlawed as were the Nazis from Germany.

This entire problem rests with the RNC, and the voters need to know that the House refuses to do what must lawfully be done: Timely find facts, and resolve an issue of failed legitimacy.

* * *

What's needed:

1. Hastert Statement

Clear position on Jefferson's Manual and House Rule 603

Clear statement on where he stands on issues of privilege

Clear date when this issue will be voted on by the House

2. Lessons to Vermont, California, and Illinois -- they have State-level petitions and proclamations in work

Summary report from feedback from Hastert to the State organizers

Proposed changes to the State proclamations to ensure the lessons Swayne are included

Adopt clear language that addresses the reasonable issues Hastert may make

3. Public discussion

Open review of the House rule 603 and Jefferson's Manual

Review of the Lessons of Swayne

How the state proclamation makes the House Judiciary Irrelevant

A reasonable public expectation that the House will order a timely investigation, and result well before the 2006 election

A public acknowledgement/discussion of where we are: We've started the first stop on a State-led effort to trigger impeachment proceedings.

Get the state citizens discussing the New Constitution which will address the roadblocks to ensuring this Constitution is protected

Remind the Senate they need to prepare for an impeachment/conviction phase; if they fail to address these issues, we're fully prepared to discuss lawful ways to change the Constitution and strip the Senate of the power they refuse to assert [Here's how: Click ]

Remind the voters they have six months to digest what the Congress does or does not do and that the rule of law shall prevail; and We the People shall protect this Constitution -- whether Congress and the President choose to cooperate or rebel will soon be irrelevant.