Are Your Members of Congress Supporting an Investigation into Bush Crimes?

As many of you have noted, at least 62% of Americans support some investigation into Bush Administration crimes (whether a criminal investigation or a truth commission). Do your members of Congress agree with the majority of Americans who refuse to ignore the past?

Here’s a list of those members of Congress who have voiced some support for an investigation. If your members of Congress aren’t on here, call them (1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803). Ask if they support one of the efforts to investigate the Bush Administration. If they’re not sure, urge them to do so. Please leave a comment so we can track what they say.

Senators

Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Pat Leahy
Carl Levin
Jack Reed
Harry Reid (?)
Sheldon Whitehouse

Congressmen

(Unless otherwise noted, these are co-sponsors of John Conyers’ bill, HR.104, calling for an independent commission.)

Tammy Baldwin
Rick Boucher
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Peter DeFazio
William Delahunt
Keith Ellison
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Raul Gijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Maruice Hinchey
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hank Johnson
Walter Jones
Barbara Lee
Carolyn Maloney
Jerrold Nadler
Ed Pastor
Nancy Pelosi
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Bobby Scott
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
David Wu

image_print
59 replies
  1. klynn says:

    Thanks for this post EW.

    BTW, have a great time in Ashville. I once had a member of my staff from Ashville, NC. Bright young person.

  2. ApacheTrout says:

    I’ve called my congressman, Peter Welch (D-VT), and asked for his support. Congressman Welch serves on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and his support for Conyer’s bill would be meaningful. His staff did not know whether he will cosponsor the bill, so I requested a reply in writing. In the past, Congressman Welch has not supported efforts to investigate Bush/Cheney through the impeachment process, so I’m not holding my breath here. Congressman Welch held that impeachment was a divisive process that would paralyze Congress and the country. While he’s done good work on uncovering and closing contracting fraud in Iraq and overseas, my sense is that continuing his legislative agenda is more important to him than true oversight and accountability.

  3. BoxTurtle says:

    Called Voinovitch’s office. They said I was the first called they’d received! Doesn’t anybody else live in Ohio? No position yet.

    Called Browns Office, staffer took my message without comment. Got the impression they weren’t very busy, either.

    Boxturtle (It seemed such a simple question)

  4. JClausen says:

    Harkin of Iowa has no official position yet but will contact me when he does.
    Braley of Iowa is strongly considering signing on as a co-sponser in the House. I have requested an answer from both asap.

    As for grASSley. Fuk em. Been calling once a week for 5 years. He needs to Go!

  5. Leen says:

    Box Turtle/Klynn. During Sherrod Brown’s senate race (did quite a bit of volunteering for him after Paul Hackett was pressured to drop out) I brought up the issue of holding the Bush administration accountable for their many crimes. At one town meeting in Athens Brown really danced around this issue using the often repeated line “we want to move forward” and more about not acting out with “vengeance”. That was when I first responded with “when did he start defining Justice as “vengeance”? During that period of time and even before you could hear Republicans and Democrats alike repeating these lame lines.

    On several occasions I have asked Brown directly about this and he certainly repeats the ” turn the page, let’s move forward” hogwash. Will call his office about this once again.

    Will call Congressman Charlie Wilson (rode in on the coattails of former Congressman Strickland) in the 18th district of Ohio. Wilson told us all that he would follow in the Strickland’s voting footsteps. He has not. I’ll put money that he will repeat the lazy chorus ….we need to move forward.

    Will report back after I call. Thanks EW for encouraging all of us to follow through…AGAIN

  6. nextstopchicago says:

    Off Topic grist for Marcy’s mill:

    An answer to Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times during Burris’s 1/7 presser:
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee…..rence.html

    >MR. BURRIS: Oh, I was putting myself in play, Lynn, by friends from Illinois and across the nation saying, “Roland, what would you” – well, you know, “You want to be senator, or you ought to be senator,” you know, “What can we do?” My statement was, “Call the governor’s office, send an e-mail to the governor’s office, send in letters.” And they were doing that from all over the country.

    >And so I thought, you know, that that would raise some level of interest on behalf of my – (chuckles) – of my interest in the Senate seat.

    In light of recent developments, it’s not a wild leap to say that what he is describing here is telling friends to contribute to Blagojevich, letting him know they were interested in seeing him promoted.

  7. oldnslow says:

    Thanks, Empty. Hope your having a safe trip.

    Unfortunatley, my congresscritter and Senators are the worst. John Carter, John Cornhole and Kay Baily Shitforbrains. There is no hope that any of the three will support the “vengefull partisan attack on our dedicated defenders”. (spit, spit) Never mind that their oath was to the constitution. Carter was on the local station last night spewing the gop lies about the Stim bill. Truly disgusting.

  8. fatster says:

    According to the Washington staffer who answered my call just now, DIFI has not yet commented on what her position will be. Imagine that.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      *snicker* They know what her position is, they just need a way to sell it without it looking like buttcovering. That’s a significant butt to cover.

      Boxturtle (Prisons are still split by sex, so she can’t be in the same cell block as Cheney. Too bad)

  9. NMvoiceofreason says:

    I have sent e-mails to Tom Udall (D-NM) and Congressman Martin T. Heinrich (D-NM)
    Representing the 1st District of New Mexico.

    Here’s what I told them: “Please co-sponsor or enter the Senate equivalent of John Conyers’ bill in the House, HR.104, calling for an independent commission to investigate the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration. Otherwise I will have to assume you do not support the rule of law or any kind of accountability for those who commit crimes while on the public payroll. I know that sounds too harsh, and given my experience working on the campaign (from the Obama side) I find it hard to believe. But actions speak louder than words. Stand up for a government that obeys the law, please.”

  10. tanbark says:

    I have mixed feelings about this. I bow to no one in my anger at what these pseudo-patriots have done to us, and really, to the world, and it would be great to see the ‘borgs lawyering up to deal with malfeasance indictments, but the cost in political capital might be too high.

    I’m just wondering if we’d be better off with the Frank Sinatra philosophy of “living well is the best revenge”. Living well to mean, turning the economy around and getting us out of, at the least, Iraq, and, we hope, Afghanistan. For example, if the economy really starts coming back, then, come the mid-terms, we can stick that vote, with 3 (!) republicans out of the whole GOP shittaree supporting the stimulus package, right where the sun don’t shine.

    But, let’s talk about it, and see what comes out. How much of the crap they pulled is indictable? Right now, the political climate sure seems to be in favor of holding the GOP responsible for our problems, and never mind all of their ridiculous exculpatory bullshit to the contrary, but would that extend to indicting them? Roughly half of the voters supported this loony-tunes administration at election time in 2000 and 2004; do we want to rub their noses in that by putting their erstwhile heros in the dock, while it looks like Obama MAY be starting on a roll with the stimulus win?

    The real crunchfight is going to come when Obama starts to unplug us from Iraq, beginning with his rotating Petraeus and Odierno out of their bushCo ass-covering duty. There are going to be political teeth, hair, and eyes, all over the highway. Would indictments help that?

    Is there still a possibility that the Hague would move on them? I would welcome that, and it wouldn’t furnish the asshat media with much of a rallying point, against Obama.

    This issue is going to be very much a reading of the voters, and of how angry they are. Despite those poll numbers, I worry that the prolonged process of dragging them into court, with all of the conservative judges that are sitting, and the years of appeals, will be detrimental to our chances of making major changes in our governmental priorities.

    But like I say, I’m open to discussion about going after them, but let’s weigh the cost-benefits.

    • ApacheTrout says:

      Living well is the best revenge, my ass. I think your anger does bow to expediency and comfort. Let’s really ignore the hole in the ship in favor of getting more pillows in our suites or improving the wifi reception next to the pool

    • DWBartoo says:

      Long-term or short-term cost-benefits?

      Doesn’t appear that ‘discussion’ (or cussin’, for that matter) is likely to ‘change’ any minds, in this ‘case’, tanbark, regardless of what anyone ‘believes’.

      ‘Believing’ in ‘change’(or audaciously hoping for ‘it’) is one thing, actually ‘doing’ it is quite another.

      That’s the ‘truth’; let’s see how much ‘reconciliation’ we can work up to about that.

      Frankly, tanbark, you’ve ‘nothing’ to worry about, because ‘nothing’ is, most-precisely, is ‘what’ is going to ‘happen’.

      Of that, you may, most-comfortably, rest assured.

      Stomping on Social Security, and touting the wonders of the health-insurance ‘industry’ thereby adding more stress and fear to the lives of ordinary ‘people’ is going to be the name of the ‘game’.

      And, we won’t leave ANY war ‘theater’ until it’s been milked of all profitability …

      The wealthy are betting (and banking) on that.

      So where do you see social ‘progress’ on the near (or even distant) horizon?

      Accountability?

      Not. going. to. happen.

      Unless some foreigners are involved in insisting upon it.

      What foreigners?

      When?

      How?

      (Need we ask ‘why’?)

      No, its the primrose path for us, tanbark.

      But, bear in mind, all laws, even those of physics are suspended for America, because we are exceptional.

      Please forgive my snark, tanbark. But I suspeculate that we’ve all been bamboozled … again.

      DW

  11. tanbark says:

    [email protected]: You’re right; it’s not a wild leap; it’s a short step. And Burris’ recent fessup was surely due to his finding out that there are transcripts of a lot of his contacts with Blago’s people.

    When Fitz’s tapes come out, I’ll be surprised if they don’t show that Burris is still low-balling the hell out of his contacts and conversations about what he would do to get Blago’s nod.

    It’s the same old story; if the truth is really shitty, and puts you in a rotten light, then getting it out in dribs and drabs is the thing to do.

    Burris can get away with it, because Fitz isn’t ready to show his cards.

    The whole thing is one big tar-baby. It would be interesting to know if there was ONE Senator who was asked by SOMEONE to make a call to Blago on his or her behalf, who instantly said:

    “Thanks, but I’m trying to cut down on that.” :o)

    We should make them the Whip by acclaimation.

  12. dosido says:

    Because justice does not figure into any political calculus, we must rely on third parties outside the system to flush out the toxins. The US must be under some kinda international jurisdiction and if not, the world had better come up with one quick.

  13. skdadl says:

    Sort of OT, but could one of the law-talkin’ persons present explain to me the meaning in U.S. legal context of “rape by instrumentality” if there is such a precise usage?

    The word I’m having trouble with is instrumentality. I don’t mean to be pedantic, but in ordinary language, instrumentality is a complex notion having to do with agency. I see that some dictionaries also list “instrument” as a synonym, but that would be ‘way far down my list of meanings.

  14. pmorlan says:

    Both my Senators will never support investigations (McConnell & Bunning). They have one ball between them and that’s Bunning’s baseball.

  15. tanbark says:

    Apache: the hole in the ship is plugged. We did that last November 4th.
    Now it’s time to man the pumps to keep her afloat, and at this point, I think that pumping has way more to do with solving the huge problems that Obama and the dems have inherited, than it does in ginning up the process of indictments and endless court proceedings and appeals, against bush and his minions.

    And getting or not getting wifi reception by the pool is not going to hurt us…Obama has to begin getting us out of Iraq, at the least, before the mid-terms, or we will lose the gains we made last election. And THAT, is going to be what defines his, and our, success or failure; not spending political capital on the AS YET dicey possibility of indictments, and even dicier convictions.

    I promise you, in fairly short order, we are going to be needing to fry some far more important fish than dragging the bushCo coterie of corporate shits into court.

    Pissing away political capital on a bunch of AS YET specious indictments is, at the least, worth debating. I’m not unalterably opposed to it, but I think we need more specifics than we now have.

    I also think that 62% number, when faced with all of the legal back-and-forth and the time that will elapse as any indictments move through the courts, will start to dwindle, especially, if, say, a year-and-a-half from now, the tentative kumbayah chorus in Iraq becomes dis-harmonious. If that happens, Obama and we will be so far up shit creek that having some of the Borgs in court (and almost certainly, as yet unconvicted) will mean exactly nothing.

    • ApacheTrout says:

      we didn’t plug on the hole in the ship on November 4, we changed captains.

      As far as needing more specifics, the specifics are well-established. Perhaps because these things are happening to others but not to you keeps your anger and desire for accountability from moving you to action.

  16. nextstopchicago says:

    To follow up on my Off-Topic post at #7:

    It turns out I was right. The Trib is now reporting what I suggested might have happened — Burris WAS asking ‘friends’ to contribute to Blagojevich as he put his name in with Blagojevich’s people for the Senate seat. Tribune here:
    http://newsblogs.chicagotribun…..evich.html

    And now Speaker Madigan has referred documents to the Sangamon County State’s Attorney (the relevant prosecutor – an official in the county where Springfield, the capital, is located; which is where Burris’s testimony took place.)

    I think Burris snagged his lip on the hook!!

  17. tanbark says:

    [email protected] no problem with the snark. :o)

    What I’m talking about is this: Obama is going to have to begin the process of getting us out of Iraq fairly soon; within a few months. If he hasn’t done this by the mid-terms, we will lose most of the congressional gains we made last November.
    The first step in the process is going to be removing Petraeus and Odierno. And that is going to be prickly, to say the least. And he’s going to have to sell the drawdown, all over again, to the voters, and he’s going to have to do it in the face of the 30% mouthbreather histrionics that we know are inevitable, and go from there.

    At that point, whether or not we have bush and a few of his minions involved in a lengthy and dicey-for-conviction legal tie-up, will be politically irrelevant. Except, that doing it will have cost Obama some support. I also believe that that 62% number will, in fairly short order, begin to erode under the pressure of a still-faltering economy, and the certainty that when we really begin to leave Iraq, what’s left is not going to be user-friendly to us.

    It’s simple: We need confidence that there is going to be some resolution, to turn things around. And having some of the bushies in court in unending court proceedings, is not going to resolve anything.

    I don’t think that “nothing” is going to happen in Iraq. I think that “something” will happen there. In fact, I’m sure of it. The idea that a central government can survive without it being backed up by our military and that $2.5 billion a week, is nonsense, to me.

    And “something”, in the form of substantial troop withdrawals, HAS to happen there, or we will lose most of the House and Senate majorities that we have now. In fact, if Obama doesn’t have our troops almost entirely out of Iraq and into bases in the Kurdish north (which are there, for the asking) and/or Kuwait, then I think he may well be a one-term president.

    The way I see it is this: The problems facing Obama, and his supporters, are so difficult, and will be so hard to solve, that I question spending ANY political capital on getting bush and his people into court. If some things come out that are so clearly outrageous that the possibility of getting some convictions goes through the rafters, then we can do it. But show trials that end in hung juries or acquittals will be a huge boost for the asshats. We also need to keep in mind that this will be driven by the polls take on what the voters are thinking and how angry they may be. It’s happening now.

    Put it like this: Will 62% favorable jurors get it done?

    At this point, I just don’t think that this is something that will help us, if we do it.

    • Knut says:

      Good analysis, and I think you are on the mark. Iraq is the immediate flash point for this administration. My guess is that the DOJ stuff will work its way through Justice and the courts, as it’s on automatic pilot. The other stuff requires more executive intervention. However, if more information comes out, it may be hard to stop. Also, if there are war crimes indictments abroad by responsible authorities, things may happen on that front as well.

  18. tanbark says:

    Apache; wadr, I think the hole WAS plugged, or at least, the main one. And with the stimulus package going through, we have a start on bailing her out. (pun intended) But unless someone comes up with some fairly heavy indictments for malfeasance, that will play, and keep playing, in Peoria, then I don’t think we should do it.

    But, you tell us; what do you think the chances are of getting some convictions on Bush, Cheyney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfelt, etc.?

    And if they are convicted, how long do you think it will take for the appeals to move through the courts?

    And if they go to the Supremes, you are aware of the current makeup and disposition of the court, I assume?

  19. Leen says:

    19 Kucinich leads the way in regard to accountability issues including false pre war intelligence and torture.

    Called Senator Sherrod Brown’s office. Callie said “Brown does not have an official stance. Will answer your questions in a letter”

    Congressman Wilson’s (Oh) Michelle “The Congressman does not have an official stand. Will send a letter in response to your questions”

    Both offices took address. The last year or so this seems to be a standard response.

    Did find out you can make a special request of your Reps to come and visit specific senior/assisted living nursing home facilities. Will certanily be doing this. Our seniors need to be heard

  20. PJEvans says:

    E-mailed Henry the W, urging support. I also pointed out that when we’ve gone the forgive-and-forget route in the past, we’ve gotten the same people back doing the same (or worse) stuff, and we need to break that cycle.

  21. pmorlan says:

    I wanted to let everyone know that Time magazine is pulling a Joe Conason by distorting the recent USA/Gallup poll info. If someone has Jim White’s email address I hope they will let him know too.

    Time Magazine Pulls a Conason With Poll Info

    In a Time magazine article by Bobby Ghosh we have yet another misrepresentation of the recent USA/Gallup poll results.

    Perhaps surprisingly, a majority of Americans polled recently by Gallup expressed their support for some kind of investigation into Bush-era wrongdoing such as the politicization of the Justice Department or torture, though much of the backing was for an independent panel, not a criminal probe.

    Yup, looks like we have another “journalist” deliberately trying to confuse their readers about the USA/Gallup poll results, just like Joe “not accountable” Conason did the other day. This is obviously not an accident, but a pattern of deceit among some of our beltway journalists.

    I sent an email to Bobby Ghosh at Time to let him know his error was noticed and that his readers expect him to correct ASAP.

  22. tanbark says:

    An independent panel investigating makes more sense to me than trying for indictments, with what we now know.

  23. Leen says:

    EW/Bmaz/all

    your opinions please
    http://www.antiwar.com/

    Rep. Walter B. Jones is tired of seeing our troops sent into battle under false pretenses, tired of endless wars fought for reasons that shift with the tides of public opinion, tired of writing letters of consolation to grieving families. And so he’s doing something about it: Rep. Jones has just introduced the Executive Accountability Act of 2009 (HR 743), which would make it a federal crime for any employee of the executive branch to lie when making the case for war – a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine.

    Isn’t it about time?

  24. 4jkb4ia says:

    I just saw this, so it is probably too late to call. However, I would suggest that the question be broken down into the three categories of the Pew poll.

    You know that Bond is hopeless as well as I do. I am surprised that Lacy has not signed on yet.

  25. 4jkb4ia says:

    I suspect that McCaskill is for investigations as a general thing but if it includes warrantless wiretapping she might be iffy.

  26. yellowsnapdragon says:

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus should be more involved in demanding investigations. A unified voting block of 74 progressives in the house could get something accomplished. Yet, one of the co-chairs, Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)isn’t even on this list of co-sponsers.

    Woolsey is my critter. She will hear from me.

  27. JohnLopresti says:

    WaPo seems to be reporting Fielding defined two parallel governments, the exiting one which refuses to give Greg Craig the torture documents, and the Democratic administration which wants the papers for continuity of government. This allusion appears in couched terms at the end of the an article today describing congressional interest in obtaining a restated OPR report of the quality of work which went into the torcha documents.

  28. ezdidit says:

    Bear in mind that sponsors and co-sponsor may not propose amendments to resolutions, so you really have to check before mouthing off at your representative like I so often do. (NY CD-09, Rep.Weiner’s district).

    Protege of Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner would probably vote for hearings. At least, he said he would in Dec.07. As for Schumer-yes, and Gillibrand, I’m not too sure, (but she does keep two rifles under her bed.)

  29. Larue says:

    With great regard and respect to all views considering whether or not there’s a hole in the hull, the captain’s bailed, the captain’s bailing, we’re all bailing, the hole in the hull’s plugged but we’re still doomed . . .

    Take into account one simple, salient and ALWAYS overlooked simple, phooking point:

    Pre War Ginned Up Iraqi Intel, Afghan Invasion Intel, FISA issues, rendetion, torture here (Gitmo) and abroad and any OTHER perceived malfeasance was shared info with the Intel Committee and as such, they are all culpable.

    A quick review of who was ON that Intel Committee from ‘00 thru ‘06 will show that our present leaders and spokespeople in both houses of congress are as guilty as the BushCo Band.

    Ergo, we’ll not see much true justice, and MAYBE, some token gesture like Investigation Panels. Like the Iraqi Panel, yadda yadda, it will die a slow, lingering and non-reported death.

    Tan’s right as rain, there’s just no point in tossing good capital will under a bus that’s deliberately being driven off the cliff to nowhere.

    Let’s get it on with getting out of Iraq, fixing FEWER troops in Afghanistan, leaving Afghanistan and Pakistan to Russia and China to worry about and get on with fixing the damned country here at home, top to bottom.

    That will include reducing the influence of the MIC on our government, reducing military budgets SIGNIFICANTLY to reinvest in jobs and infrastructure development and maintainence (which will provide jobs for US CITIZENS!) and retooling and reformatting our healthcare and educational systems by EXPANDING their ability to deliver a quality product FOR ALL OF US!!!!! Including the poor and non-citizens, cuz that’s the measure of government, and society . . . how well do they provide for the lower strata and enable a way upwards for us all.

    Of course, all this will entail getting rid of all those who WERE complacent and complicit with BushCo’s Reign Of Terror, getting rid of them one way or another.

    Tall glass of water, ain’t it, ahead of us.

    Harumph.

    • Jkat says:

      i really don’t care what party they belong to .. or how high the office .. the principles remain the same: “no one is above the law” ..and “all persons are equal under the law” .. and unless we’re prepared to abandon those bedrock precepts of our national psyche .. we are obligated by both principle and law ..and duty .. to prosecute felony violations of US law by our political actors ..

      bush-cheney et al .. pelosi .. rockafellah .. reid .. DiFi .. i just don’t give whiff ..

      let’s enforce the law …

      scared rabbits don’t deserve to wear the title “americans” .. if they were too terrified to obey the law .. let ‘em swing from the yardarm ..

  30. selise says:

    to prove to the people who say we are only after partisan revenge and not accountability, why not include the clinton administration as well as the bush administration when we ask for an investigation?

  31. foothillsmike says:

    It may become necessary to picket federal court houses across the country.
    Signs could read “Validate our laws Support a Truth Commission”

  32. davidaquarius says:

    My congresscritter is Deputy Dawg Dave Reichert. He doesn’t go to the restroom without Boehner’s OK.

    As a former law enforcement officer, one would assume that he’s be all over this like flies on poop but nope… IOKIYAR!

    As for my Senators, Murray and Cantwell… I sent them an email last month encouraging them to take their calcium supplements but haven’t heard back.

    Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

  33. Neil says:

    Sen. Kennedy – If laws were broken then senator believes they should be prosecuted. His office is not ready to comment on any of the initiatives being discussed, such as by Leahy and Conyers.

    Sen. Kerry – call back next week. When regular staff is in.

    Congressmen Lynch – l/m with aide.

    • Leen says:

      Damn that’s one Senator who is willing to take a stand on this issue. Thank you Senator Kennedy! Have we had any other say the word “prosecuted”

  34. openhope says:

    I’ve got Cantwell and Murray, too. Since their staffers, local and DC, were noncommittal I asked them to send me a letter stating the senators’ positions on this important Constitutional matter.
    Rick Larsen is not one to have opinions very often. So I asked for a letter on his position since HR 104 was his territory. I’m fond of making them physically mail things.

  35. shell says:

    My rep is Dan Lungren. I will call, but it will do no good. Every time I have called before, his answer (by email) just says “Thank you for writing/calling me. I am glad you agree with me.” (I never agree with him.) Worthless.

    I realize you only requested calls to Democrats. I will call Feinstein, GOP-Lite. She is the type that MIGHT change her “mind.”

  36. Chacounne says:

    As some of you know, my husband, Dan, was a Vietnam vet who survived torture. He suffered from his injuries for over thirty years, until his fatal heart attack three and a half years ago. Dan left me the mission of stopping torture as the law, policy and practice of the United States, and pushing to make sure that those responsible are held accountable.

    As part of my mission, I will be in DC and talking with anyone who can actually make decisions next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. If anyone has contacts with Senatorial and a Congressional Staff Members, other than the regular routes, I’d be glad to have the help with setting up more meetings.

    With gratitude and standing for justice and accountability,
    For Dan,
    Heather

    my email is my nick at gmail . com

  37. wmd1961 says:

    Emailed and called Anna Eshoo’s office, urged restoration of the rule of law and denouncing policies that are both unconscionable and criminal, that without investigation and exposure of these crimes we cannot claim moral high ground.

    Her staffer said that he would pass it along. I expect an email in a few days stating that she’s going to cosponsor, she’s generally been pretty good on civil liberty issues when I’ve contacted her in the past, including meeting with her staff in her office in DC.

  38. Cujo359 says:

    Not surprisingly, I’m 0 for 3. My idiot congressman, a Democrat from a bluish district, didn’t see anything worth impeaching someone for in the conduct of the Bush Administration. Now that we’re past all that, I seriously doubt he’s changed his mind.

  39. orcatjf says:

    Hey, I asked. But since Rep. Biggert is JAFR, a brainless lemming, she is going to say we can’t criminalize political policy. I can’t stand people who can’t stand up for principle.

Comments are closed.