Nadler Cites Bush's Impeachable Offenses and War Crimes but Rejects Impeachment

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared George Bush guilty of "impeachable offenses" and "some people" in his Administration with "war crimes."

Nevertheless, Nadler insisted Bush should not be impeached because it would "distort the presidential campaign." Watch it:

Here's the transcript:

I think as a matter of justice that if we had a just system and it weren't overly political, the President probably would be impeached. I think he has committed impeachable offenses.

But first of all, it's not up to me as to whether we should impeach the President, it's up to the House as a whole and up to the leadership of the House to allow such a proceeding to be brought.

As a practical matter at this point in the game with 6 months left in the Administration, it would never happen, and it's probably not the best idea to start a full impeachment hearing at this point which would simply take all the attention away from and distort the presidential campaign.

In my view, if we're going to restore the United States as a nation of laws, if we're going to see some of these hideous and illegal practices... stop, the most important thing right now is to elect Barack Obama as President so we can get a decent honest man in office again and an Administration that begins to obey the law.

And then I would hope to see prosecutions - criminal prosecutions - of some people in the Bush Administration who have clearly committed war crimes because I think it's very important that people be held accountable so these crimes do not set precedents for the...

Nadler's position is politically, morally, and legally bankrupt. The 2008 "presidential campaign" began shortly after the 2004 election, and became a full-fledged media obsession immediately after the 2006 election. According to Nadler's logic, a President could never be impeached - even if he is a war criminal - because there is always a Presidential election underway.

As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler has direct jurisdiction over Bush's impeachable offenses and war crimes. His failure to enforce the Constitution is a complete betrayal of his oath of office, which requires him to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Fortunately Nadler is being held accountable for betraying his oath of office by Adam Sullivan, a passionate impeachment supporter who is challenging Nadler in a Democratic primary on September 9. Adam writes,

When my congressman tells me that he will not co-sponsor an impeachment resolution against a reckless and criminal vice president, I submit to you that he has broken faith with the people he is meant to serve, and violated his sworn oath to the Constitution. He has chosen to adhere to the wishes of his party leaders in the name of some short-sighted political “wisdom.”

I will never break an oath to protect the Constitution, no matter the perceived cost to a political agenda. The cost to our country, our republic, and to each individual citizen is too great to bear. We are citizens of the United States of America. We deserve better.

If you believe Bush should be impeached, please volunteer or contribute to Adam Sullivan's campaign.

Update 1: When talking to impeachment activists, Nadler sings a different tune:
Nadler told us the concern was that the attack dog Republicans (not all) would characterize this as "retribution for the Clinton impeachment. And the media would go along with it."
Sue4theBillofRights is spot-on in response:
Is that all life is? To tremble in fear at what attacks the other party might make on you? You are better than that, Congressman. We know you are.


To the contrary it would motivate me

  • Liberal_Texas_Democrat's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

to vote. If the choice is a rapscallion Republican or an enabling Democrat what's the use?

There is another, and

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

There is another, and better, choice: replace the "enabling Democrat" with a real Democrat.

Jerry is the problem of whom he speaks

  • danmonte's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

First, Hooray to Adam Sullivan.

Jerry Nadler is part of the House Democratic leadership. He holds a critical subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee. Justice is administered by the Congress when the Administration runs afoul of the Constitution. If this justice is overly political now it is because Jerry and other House leaders have made it so. They were elected to right this situation.

What can he mean by, distort the Presidential campaign? It must be he thinks it will harm Obama’s chances to win. And the election is not going to be determined by how many vote for Democrats but by how many votes are prevented from being cast or even counted, remember 2000 and 2004. Even Jerry’s analysis admits that the Democrats might not “WIN”.

If impeachment does not occur then Bush will pardon everyone and those trails Jerry speaks of will not happen. If impeachment trials of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I were allowed to happen then Rumsfield, Cheney, and many others would not have been in the White House to commit these crimes Jerry speaks of.

exactly right

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

if those criminals had been locked away during Watergate and Iran-Contra, they would not have destroyed Iraq - and the US.