Comments (35)

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 2:18 PM:

What is Rahm crowing about? The OVP is funded by Haliburton no-bid government contracts, not the Congress.

Matt wrote on June 28, 2007 2:20 PM:

Rahm should not be saying "rules" he should be saying "laws."

If you are going after somebody at least use words that don't make it sound like you are cheating at a game.

Kevin wrote on June 28, 2007 2:21 PM:

I'm tired of these establishment clowns giving us words. Until they actually get something done, this stupid routine is an not-funny red herring.

theWalrus wrote on June 28, 2007 2:27 PM:

The Vice President, the WH and David Addington made absolute fools of themselves with this rationale. Everyone knows it. It's all downhill from here, folks. The Republican Party and Conservative Movement are history. They had their moment in the sun (sewer).

Unfortunately, rightwing enablers have been placed in enough high positions (Fed District Courts and SCOTUS) that even with a Dem sweep in 2008, we will continue to see the will of the people subverted for years to come.

chabuka wrote on June 28, 2007 2:36 PM:

Nancy Pelosi should be labeled an "obstructionist" then removed from office..contempt of Congress is an impeachable offence, a felony..! If she continues to declare impeachment is "off the table" then she should also be held responsible for complicity to a felony, dereliction of duty and obstructing justice..I am tired of the mealy-mouthed Democratic party

DebT wrote on June 28, 2007 2:39 PM:

The Democratic majority is just not large enough to push things through. The Republicans are much more willing to obstruct with fillibuster.

We need more Dems or Independents in the Senate as well as the House. Or else pressure needs to be applied to the Republicans who are enabling this president.

expert wrote on June 28, 2007 2:45 PM:

Right you are about the WH and Addington making fools of themselves with their rationale that Cheney was not part of the executive branch (except when convenient, of course). Now, even though they have backed off from that particular claim, the issue has everyone's undivided attention, which is exactly what they did not want. Whereas if they had simply stuck to the Executive Privilege argument, it would be business as usual, no one would be surprised, and life would go on as it has been.

Major blunder, oh happy day!

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 28, 2007 2:46 PM:

Warlrus

"we will continue to see the will of the people subverted for years to come."

Your statement is painfully true. Of as much concern as installing non-criminals in positions of public trust is the rescuing of the media from Rupert Murdoch-like enslavement. A somewhat independent media might at least report abuses by the right-wing judiciary.

eric wrote on June 28, 2007 2:48 PM:

That was remarkably unimpressive.

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 2:49 PM:

I've seen enuff naked emperors to last 2 lifetimes...

the newest nude mad monarch does take the cake for creativity, however.

Plow wrote on June 28, 2007 3:11 PM:

Emmanuel's jackassing around is an utter waste of time and effort- stupid, childish clowning by a stupid clown of a man. Our constitutional government remains under assault by wicked and corrupt GOP, the slaughter continues unabated in Iraq, and that idiot chooses to play games on the floor of congress. It's sickening.

jak1 wrote on June 28, 2007 3:19 PM:

well if cheney is president of the senate, then why doesn't somebody just pull hium aside to talk? I mean he is there every Tuesday, I think I heard him say some time ago. Isn't he famous for dropping an f-bomb on the senate floor? So we know he was there at least once.

Maybe noone noticed because he was inside some man-sized safe. I here he likes those.

mbbsdphil wrote on June 28, 2007 3:28 PM:

One of the most important tasks, presumably for the next Congress, should be to reinforce the legislation regarding presidential records. They should also override the EO Bush put in place his first week in office, which granted a president, in effect, a veto on the release of "his" records.

Congress should restate what it has already tried to make clear in existing legislation, that presidential records, like those of a corporate CEO, belong to his or her employer. In the case of the president (and any de facto president, like Richard Cheney), those records belong to the people; the president is only a temporary custodian of someone else's property.

We know how carefully Shrub has fulfilled similar obligations in the past, NOT, so Congress should prepare now for the destruction, mishandling and theft of public records, some of which (eg, the RNC-based presidential e-mails) has already taken place.

Their release should be prompt and routine, with only limited, narrowly-tailored exceptions regarding excisions and delays. These records, for example, are only on loan to a presidential museum; they are not their property and they should be legally bound to care for and account for their use of the people's property.

Some of this is already law; but Congress should up the ante (via record-keeping disclosures and penalties) and make its expectations even clearer because of this administrations consistent and predictable flouting of the law.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 28, 2007 3:29 PM:

Plow

It's possible that not everyone shares your opinion that Emmanuel is merely game playing. As you noted the opponent is formidable, and so a multi-pronged attack, including an attempt to defund a non-compliant agency, would seem to be the appropriate tactic.

Stephennnn wrote on June 28, 2007 3:52 PM:

Great achievements often begin with small works. Go for it Emmanuel.

Stephennnn wrote on June 28, 2007 3:53 PM:

Great achievements often begin with small works. Go for it Emmanuel.

Baldrick wrote on June 28, 2007 3:57 PM:

I agree with Billy Pilgrim. Also, never underestimate the value of derision in undermining someone's stature. Rahm is gutting "Angler" with ridicule, something that is so long overdue that I can barely believe it is finally happening.

poggy wrote on June 28, 2007 4:01 PM:

Right, when republicans commit a crime, it's breaking the rules. When democrats commit a crime, it's violating the law.

WhollyRogueEmperor wrote on June 28, 2007 4:05 PM:

Timber! TIMBER!

Branches falling! Branches falling!

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 28, 2007 4:11 PM:

Speaking of clowns, here's from Bozo Darrell Issa in today's defunding debate in the House.

"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) argued that holding the vice president accountable would somehow 'undercut the very underpinnings of the Constitution.'"

Click on name to hear it.

Plow wrote on June 28, 2007 4:28 PM:

Billy Pilgrim: No doubt about that- at least in certain democratic circles. But I can't stomach such theatrics. It's kid stuff, and it makes the democrats look silly. They should go for Cheney's throat with a bill of impeachment. Now that would impress me.

jeffgee wrote on June 28, 2007 4:44 PM:

The chain of command is now the Cheney Command

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 4:54 PM:

Beware the GOP efforts to block debate on this Amendment; or Senate decisions to block review of the Conference Committee.

Don't whine about it; plan on it: The basis to impeach, all other options have failed, even attempts to shut down funding.

Keep at it: Force the GOP to block what the WH/OVP needs: Money.

WhollyRogueEmperor wrote on June 28, 2007 5:12 PM:

It's that same old (completely) evil vs (completely) good mentality problem which is so literally misconstrued all too often by the easily fooled who are apt to support the Bushies of the world --

so maybe we need to rename the position of *Vice* President to something more like the Virtue President #2 -- since the President would have to be the Virtue President #1; right?

*Vice* literally just keeps tripping them up otherwise ... or maybe that's what 'up' looks like to them ...

unimportant wrote on June 28, 2007 5:48 PM:

Look,

This has to be said any time someone brings up impeachment. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL ACT. It requires 2/3rds of house and senate to convict and would shut down all business in Washington for months. That means no more investigations, no more minimum wage increase, no immigration deal, no healthcare deal, no oversight hearings.

The Democratic Leadership understands that which you apparently do not. VENDETTAS LOSE ELECTIONS. I'd much rather see the leadership doing actual oversight than pathetic show trials to appease the fringe.

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 6:00 PM:

Sounds like he took a page right out of Bill Bennett's play book, the one that custom officials recently mistook for scat porno from Germany. Ole' DICK might want to turn the rhetoric nozzle down a hair, otherwise he may end up garnering as much respect and GOP authoritative B.O. as Bill. You know about Bill, don't you?

Bill Bennett is used to the skull f-ing monotony. Now fully engaged as captain of a New Zealand commercial chumming boat, he's accustomed to spending months at a time afloat in the Antarctic Ocean, staring at-well, nothing. "Just ice really, lots and lots of ice," said Bennett recently. "Sometimes, not even a seabird or an increasingly growing mass of jetsam and flotsam that threatens South America and other ports o' call." On a particularly calm day in late January, Bennett was tending to a recurring problem with getting his Johnson caught in the various hooks, lures, and fishing lines of his tackle box, each one 2,000 meters long (nearly a mile and a quarter), and sporting up to 10,000 baited hooks, in hopes of a major mud Shark haul, since being ungracellesly dumped by his once loyal party. Suddenly, the calm was shattered-by the sight of a colossal brown squid surfacing and squirting inky fishy smelling splooge, buckets full, near the stern and upon his legendary Cro-Magnon protruding brow. The beast, a 33-foot-long adult male weighing half a ton, had wrapped itself around Bennett's pecker. "It was just this great big brown shape, tha' pecker was, and tha' homer squid wrapped his qwar tentacles 'round it," recalls Bennett, who was watching from the bridge, still pissed about getting nailed for gambling. "It came up right alongside my inseam. Everyone was yelling and screaming - including the ladies." One must take this last statement with a grain of salt, as anyone getting busted for losing extravagent amounts of money playing a pussy gambling device like a slot machine has a tendancy to exagerate in order to attract the ladies. Poor lonely Bill preety much pounds his pud like it owes him money, just like Ralph Reed.

DICK! It's not too late! Don't let this fate happen to you!

the golux wrote on June 28, 2007 6:06 PM:

Rahm's amendment is a stunt, but I think a more legitimate use of the same tactic might be to refuse to fund OVP until Cheney discloses the number and identities of his staff, which he has so far refused to do. For all we know, he might be paying Lynne $500,000 a year. We have no way of knowing. It's a legitimate oversight question. We should use it.

dgj wrote on June 28, 2007 6:14 PM:

Matt, re "rules" vs "laws": Rahm's amendment is predicated on Cheney's refusal to follow an executive order, and his wriggling justifications therefor. Exec. orders aren't "laws," really. He's just being accurate.

Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 7:23 PM:

This is BS, as impeachmen is a tool to enforce the law: "IMPEAPMENT IS A POLITICAL ACT."

This is WARONG, the House only requires a thin margin to support, get your facts straight: "It requires 2/3rds of house and senate to convict and would shut down all business in Washington for months."

YOu hae no basis to say it will "shut things" down for "months". Other hearings occurred during Nixon investigation. Get your facts straight.

This is without merit: Other hearings did occur, "That means no more investigations, no more minimum wage increase, no immigration deal, no healthcare deal, no oversight hearings." False.

This sounds like GOP concern troll-non-sense: "The Democratic Leadership understands that which you apparently do not." DNC leadership is reacting to GOP non-sense. That's not undestanding anything, but reacting.

This is GOP non-sense: "VENDETTAS LOSE ELECTIONS." Why isn't the GOP then calling for the thing that will "lose the election for the DNC"? No answer.

Failing to prosecute -- with a SINGLE impeachment -- hardly is a "show": It's required: "I'd much rather see the leadership doing actual oversight than pathetic show trials to appease the fringe."

Posted by: unimportant
Date: June 28, 2007 5:48 PM

Plow wrote on June 28, 2007 8:36 PM:

"VENDETTAS LOSE ELECTIONS."

Vendetta? Is that what you think impeachment proceedings against Bush and/or Cheney would be all about? Hardly. I'd call it a moral, and mortal, imperative. That is, if our living Constitution is to survive.

tk wrote on June 28, 2007 9:12 PM:

Emanuals speech = totally ineffective. Why the rant, why not just call the VP bluff. Democratic congress is going nowhere

Samsara wrote on June 28, 2007 9:31 PM:

Rahm Emanuel is getting himself some solo face time on the tube. He is trying to become more than just another face in the crowd standing around the Democratic podium. The last time I was this impressed by a political stunt was when the Republican back benchers attacked Pelosi for flying in a plane.

Sorry Tip, all politics used to be local, now all politics is personal.

JNagarya wrote on June 29, 2007 12:26 AM:

Nancy Pelosi should be labeled an "obstructionist" then removed from office..contempt of Congress is an impeachable offence, a felony..! If she continues to declare impeachment is "off the table" then she should also be held responsible for complicity to a felony, dereliction of duty and obstructing justice..I am tired of the mealy-mouthed Democratic party

Posted by: chabuka
Date: June 28, 2007 2:36 PM

You have your head up your ass --

1. Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House.

2. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

3. It would be at least an apparent conflict of interest -- as in "ethcis," concerning which you are clearly challenged -- for Pelosi to initiate her own job interview.

Do you make it a practice to be stupid?

As for crticis of Emmanuel's amendment:

He is responding with "silliness" to _silliness_. But he is also following through with it.

castmd wrote on June 29, 2007 11:46 AM:

Rep. Emanuel is a blow hard. Such a "show" to the public. Pelosi needs to rein in these loose warriors, and find some work to do. Americans are tired of this waste of our dollars. If a crime has been committed, bring it on to the Whitehouse and any others. If not, shut up and legislate. Speaker Pelosi stated that no impeachment proceedings would occur under her watch. Is she asleep or brain dead?

yvkjn ydxipca wrote on September 9, 2007 11:01 AM:

trwuhm ysjrpwkz abewit fucphrvq rnbhexw kdmhbtgf nkeioqx