Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

macgupta

Published Letters: 2034

Saturday, June 7, 2008 03:34 PM

Rush Holt on impeachment

GG has nothing but kind words for Rep Rush Holt (D-NJ12th). Called him one of our best legislators. Here is what I recorded July 22, 2007 on my blog. It may be of interest to folks here.

--------------------------

My representative Congressman Rush Holt (D- NJ 12th district) held a townhall meeting today, which I attended. There were many tens of people there. Troubling to me were that the number of incoherent (a PC term for scared sh*tless) people that were there for whom illegal immigration is the main source of terrorism - the build-a-wall-on-the border, fight-them-in-Iraq so they-don't-fight-us-in-Freehold types. The Congressman was very adroit in disentangling their concerns into the separate issues and then talking about how one might address them.

But I want to report here about what I remember of Rep. Holt's thoughts on impeachment of the President. It is from memory only, I don't even have notes, and is a composite of answers to several questions, and in my own words. So it is really what I heard rather than what he said.

Holt believes that he won his election to Congress in 1998 at least in part because of reaction to the impeachment of Clinton which he condemned as a partisan affair. He fears that if a substantial minority - even 25% - begin to have the attitude that "we lost the last elections, but we have impeachment - the country is in trouble. So the second of the two conditions he thought necessary for impeachment was that it not be seen as a partisan issue. So far no significant slice of Republicans have signed up for impeachment.

In short - impeachable though this President is, having a partisan impeachment would be worse than what we currently have. What happened with Clinton has to stop there, and not become a political custom.

Holt thought that the suspension of habeas corpus, the warrantless wiretapping, the policy of torture all rose to the level of impeachable offenses. He said that probably most people in the room could compose a Bill of Particulars for impeachment. But he did not think that the vast majority of Americans had any sense of what is at stake. To them, we are talking about the rights of some stranger, an unfamiliar looking person with an Arab-sounding name. Unless they themselves feel threatened, they will not sign on to impeachment. Still far too many of them tell him in essence, I'll sign away my rights if it makes me safer. So we have a job of education to do.

He said that the Declaration of Independence was a Bill of Particulars, and its virtue was that everyone at that time understood them. Everyone today would have a different set of grievances in their version of such, and until it became one, "our Bill of Particulars", (this is the first of the two conditions) impeachment would go nowhere.

Holt thought that rather than having this neon sign "Impeachment" at which half the country would turn one way and half the other, it was important to firmly mark out that "Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended", "Wire-tapping without a court warrant will not be allowed", etc.; impeachment in the current political climate would only be a distraction.

So as of now, Holt has not signed up on HR333 and is not considering impeachment as a real possibility.

Sunday, June 8, 2008 04:23 PM

@Bill Owen

Bill Owen perhaps forgets the hijacking of Indian Airlines 814.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (who later killed Daniel Pearl) was set free from an Indian prison as a price for release of the hostages.

As I remember it from that time, and Wikipedia confirms:

The Taliban authorities initially refused to cooperate with Indian authorities to secure a release of the hostages. They also emphatically refused to allow Indian commandos to storm the plane. They refused the request to let Afghan commandos storm the plane, as well. Their plea was that they wouldn't allow a foreign military outfit to operate in Afghanistan and they themselves are not capable to undertake such an operation. (It has since been confirmed that this hijacking was carried out with the official support/complicity of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda).

To assume that the Taliban, complicit in that hijacking, would honor a request to extradite Osama bin Laden, is naivete of the highest order.

Most Active Letters Threads

732

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
295

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
190

The poster boy for progressive self-delusion

Read Hayden's 2008 Obama endorsement to remember the way the left sold our centrist president to itself

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon