Hawai'i has two representatives, Abercrombie and Hirono, and both of them are members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus. However, both of them oppose impeachment on practical grounds (more on that, later).
Both of them are on the record with published views on impeachment: Hirono on July 9, on the Maui County Democratic Party blog, and Abercrombie on July 11 in the Honolulu Advertiser's "Hot Seat" blog.
The Democratic Party of Hawaii has also taken a position on the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, reprinted here below the fold.
The OFFICIAL POSITION of the Democratic Party of Hawaii on the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, from the Platform of the Party, adopted at the May 2006 State Convention:
Hawai`i Democrats believe that George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzalez, as officers of the United States of America, have attempted to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, place the Executive above the law and usurp the powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, through the commission of numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, including, but not limited to, lying to Congress and the American people about the need to invade Iraq, committing the United States to an undeclared war of aggression against Iraq in violation of the United States Constitution, the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nuremburg Charter, authorizing the use of torture in violation of those same instruments and using the National Security Agency to illegally spy on Americans. Hawai`i Democrats support the impeachment and trial of said officers, their removal from office and their disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
One means of stopping the current Administration from further violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to impeach its members and remove them from office.
We call on our senators and representatives to do all they can to impeach President George Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney and remove them from office as soon as possible.
During the current recess, both representatives have discussed impeachment at public meetings. So why are they at odds with their own Party platform?
Rep. Hirono basically says the votes aren't there. Not enough votes in the Senate to produce a conviction. Maybe not even enough votes in the House to impeach.
Abercrombie provided three reasons at the public meeting last weekend:
1. Impeachment of both Bush and Cheney has been criticized as a plot to make Democrat Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, President. This fits in with the accusation that impeachment is just a vendetta by Democrats.
2. Politically, it "can’t be done" because "we don’t have the votes," and it would "paralyze Congress." [I’ve heard this so many times from Democrats that it must be a Standard Official Democrat Talking Point.]
3. The Presidential nomination process has become accelerated and pushed earlier than ever before. The idea of conducting an impeachment process at the same time as a Presidential campaign is unprecedented and unthinkable. [This is the first time I’ve heard this one.]
But Abercrombie did mention a few new (to me) elements. First, he said that the Democratic leadership was looking for ways to "peel" Republicans away from the solid Republican block, but so far without much luck. The implication was that if they could figure out how to peal off a few more votes, impeachment would be back on the table.
He also suggested that the logic of the 3 points above do NOT apply to Gonzales! However, he did not elaborate on this.
It sounds to me like Hirono and Abercrombie are reading from the same playbook, authored in Washington by the Democratic leadership. One commenter remarked on hearing similar objections from Jerry Nadler (NY), who is chair of the Constitutional Affairs subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
Abercrombie's stated objections fail on a number of points.
- If the Democrats really are worried about the first objection, they could impeach Cheney first, and then, if Cheney were removed, allow Bush and the Republicans the opportunity to nominate his replacement (which would require approval by both House and Senate.)
- The second objection makes the Democrats look spineless and unsure of the justice of their own position. It overlooks the fact that the process of removal involves two steps: Impeachment (in the House), to bring formal charges (like an indictment), and the second, the trial in the Senate. Of course the cloud that hangs over these procedures is the parody of impeachment that took place when a Republican Congress and a rabid special prosecutor conducted a vendetta against President Clinton on the flimsiest of pretexts, which after a very lengthy process finally trapped Clinton on a perjury charge relating to a personal peccadillo.
In contrast, the available material of high crimes and misdemeanors against Cheney (and Bush, and Gonzales) are numerous and well documented. As impeachment hearings progressed, it would become increasingly awkward for Republicans to defend the downright illegal activities of Cheney (and Bush, and Gonzales), and if they did so, they would carry those albatrosses around their necks in next year's election campaigns. So I am much more confident that well-managed impeachment hearings will peel Republicans away, and their solidarity will crumble. Same thing in the Senate, although the bar is higher (60% of votes to convict, only 1/3 of Senators up for re-election). Nevertheless, I can see Republican senators squirming as they try to defend the illegal activities of unpopular leaders. If managed well, this process could divide and fracture the Republican coalition. In fact, I can see a few senior Republicans like John Warner, Arlen Spector, and Richard Lugar wandering over to the White House to ask Bush to spare them the embarrassment of having to defend those turkeys.
As for the complaint about paralyzing Congress, I am not impressed. Most of the work in the House is done in committees. Once the Articles of Impeachment have been drafted, the debate can be done quickly, and by the time it would come to the floor, most Representatives will have decided how to vote, anyway. The business of the Senate would be disrupted more, but I can't think of a more important thing for it to be disrupted by.
- The Third argument is novel, but I don't see why Democrats should fear it. On the other hand, I think the Republicans would fear it a great deal, and would want very badly for the whole issue to go away.
In other words, I don't think the talking points of the Democratic leadership, as spelled out by Abercrombie and Hirono, hold much water.
But there are important strategic points to be considered.
- Who to impeach first? I would suggest Gonzales. Abercrombie seems to concede that his objections apply less to Gonzo than to Cheney and Bush. Articles involving perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements, and more should be easy to formulate in rock solid form, with clear evidence. A start has been made. A resolution has already been introduced by Rep. Jay Inslee's (D-WA) (H Res 589), with 27 co-sponsors, directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Next in line would be Cheney. Rep. Kucinich has already introduced a resolution of impeachment that now has 20 co-sponsors.
Many of the charges against Gonzales and Cheney may involve President Bush as unindicted co-conspirator. If the charges against them hold, the handwriting will be on the wall, as it was for Nixon, that he must resign or be impeached.
It can be done, it should be done, it must be done.
Impeachment is a Civic Responsibility.
If the Democrats don't do it, they will appear to be weak, and they will not do as well as they think they will in the next elections.
There are more reasons still, but these should be enough.
Bob in HI