An electoral petition hearing: Friday August 1, NY, NY

Fellow Patriots,

Forgive me for telling this story so late following the events of last Friday, but as our campaign winds down the rest of my life (work,work, work) has been catching up with me. But this story tickles me, and I just wanted to share it with all of you. For context, you should be familiar with Jim McCabe's post on the campaign blog, "Nadler Operatives Nuke Sullivan Petitions."

With the challenges to our petitions coming from the Nadler camp, and the prima facie finding by the BoE that I am not a properly enrolled Democrat, notification of a hearing at the Kings County Supreme Court had been issued. Having received the notification, I contacted our legal counsel for one last piece of advice: "Should I go to this hearing, and if so, what should I say?" Our counsel had made clear earlier that we stood no real chance of being on the ballot, and that to default on the hearing would simply confirm a withdrawal of my candidacy. He had also mentioned, though, that going to the hearing might offer an opportunity to grandstand one last time on the impeachment issue. (Sometimes the press is there, he said.)

While I was not certain about how appropriate it would be to grandstand at the hearing, I decided to attend the hearing after discussion with Sharon. What concerned me most was the implication in the Nadler camp's petition that our petitions were possibly "fraudulent." I did not want to be exposed legally, if my failure to appear in court were seen as a tacit admission of fraud; but more importantly, I felt that those who had signed our petitions deserved to be represented, and that they did not deserve to have their wishes dismissed as though part of some political hoax.

Truth be told, I was very nervous to go. I had, in fact, already had to default on one hearing (on a working day for me), which was rescheduled and I could not be sure how the judge would view that. I imagined that it would most likely go smoothly, but I understood that the wrong judge on the wrong day could make my life difficult or worse. Our legal counsel had never mentioned anything like the possibility of a fine, but my imagination was beginning to run away with me. I was most concerned that I and/or the campaign could be left open to future legal complications, litigation, etc.

What happened was something like the opposite.

The hearing was rather informal (as Sharon describes it, "a conference table with an audience"), and the judge a friendly, avuncular and kind-hearted Orthodox Jew named Smith. As I took my place in front of him, three (3!) men in suits sat down opposite me, representing Cooper and Jacobson, Nadler's plaintiffs. One was the lawyer from Stroock, Stroock and Lavan, another introduced himself as general counsel for the BoE (!) and the third...I have no idea who was the third. Another lawyer. The title of Jim's blog was ringing in my head--Nadler's operatives were once again going nuclear. One lawyer would have sufficed, but here were three.

I introduced myself to the judge, whereupon he extended his hand to shake mine. I did, then proceeded to offer my hand to the lawyer (named Goldfeder, I think) from SS&L. I was determined to smile and stay friendly. (After all, I was walking in there to concede, not to fight--but did Nadler's people know it?) The judge then remarked, "Oh, you're the candidate?" I said yes, and he shook my hand again.

Emboldened by his friendliness and apparent good nature, I offered an apology to the judge for missing the first hearing. He said that, well, I was lucky that he was the judge, because he rescheduled the hearing instead of just saying that I'm "out". I smiled and remarked, "I think I'm 'out' anyway." He said, "Well, now you'll be 'out' on the substance, instead of on the procedure."

At this point, mind you, the judge had hardly said a word to the three important men in suits on my right. This would continue for most of the hearing, which was probably not more than four minutes in length.

The judge asked me first for a description of the situation. I told him briefly about how we had discovered that I was not correctly enrolled as a Democrat, and that I understood that this means that I will not be on the ballot. Then the judge blew my mind. Rather than a perfunctory response, or some admonishment for conducting an irresponsible campaign, he said, "I'm sorry."

"Well, I'm sorry," he said, "because I know what it's like to go through collecting all of those signatures."

I was smiling, and my eyes practically welling up, as I responded, "Actually, your honor, that was my favorite part of the campaign. It was a privilege going out and speaking to the constituents about what we were trying to do."

"Well, I wish you good luck," he finished. Then he turned to the guys-in-suits, and asked if they would withdraw their petition "without prejudice". They said, "yes." There it was, on the record, that our campaign was over, yes, but without any intimation of fraud. That was it. I thanked the judge, and he shook my hand, smiling, for a third time. Then I shook the lawyer's hand again, grabbed my bag and headed for the door.

I had to get out fast, because I was suppressing giggles. I could not help but think that the three important guys in suits must be a bit deflated. After all, not only did they not get to say what a bad guy I am and how fraudulent/invalid my candidacy is, heck, the judge barely even addressed them. He chit-chatted with me for a few minutes, and suddenly it was all over but the ride back to Manhattan.

I still have an overall feeling of unfinished business regarding this campaign, and probably always will. But keeping perspective requires making the most of the smallest victories. It may not mean much ultimately, but to me it feels wonderful knowing that the Nadler camp probably spent a small fortune in legal fees to nuke our campaign, a campaign which we all know now was DOA. I love that the three suits were clearly puffed up with self-importance, operatives of the Nadler electoral strategy, only to find that at least two of them didn't need to be there. If none of them had shown up, it might have gone down the same way.

I know this buys us nothing for impeachment, but it meant everything to me to be able to walk away from that hearing laughing. It was a reminder that justice does exist, even if it is only portioned out in small amounts, and that the straw men who think they run the world can be reminded occasionally that they do not. There are mechanisms of this universe which benefit the smallest of us, though some days it may seem otherwise.

I give thanks to God for small favors.

Power to the People,
Adam

Nadler Operatives Nuke Sullivan Petitions

July 26, 2008
By Jim McCabe

Jerry Nadler’s specific objections to Adam Sullivan’s petitions remind me of the Monty Python skit where a particularly persistent buzzing fly elicits increasingly drastic measures by the badgered individual seeking to eliminate it. Not content with a swatter, the pestered person resorts to machine gun fire, then dynamite. And through it all the fly keeps on buzzing.

Those of us working for Adam Sullivan never expected that Congressman Nadler would accept Sullivan’s invitation to debate the issue of impeachment. But one would have thought that the Nadler camp would have relaxed and had a celebratory glass of champagne once they found out that Sullivan had missed by months the deadline from changing his registration from unaffiliated to Democrat, therefore making him ineligible to run. But no. Suzanne Jacobson and Debra Cooper, acting on behalf of Robert Gottheim of Nadler’s district office, apparently went line by line through all 157 pages of Sullivan’s petitions, alleging that 919 signatures were invalid of the 1946 claimed.

In hindsight many of us savored the fact that the Nadler minions invested this energy sweating over each signature, surely their just dessert given the countless hours invested by many of us on the other side writing letters, collecting signatures, urging Mr. Nadler and other Democratic members of Congress to fulfill their Constitutional oath and begin impeachment hearings.

Suffice it to say that before the Sullivan camp learned of the enrollment issue, we had begun the process of verifying the petition signatures against the Board of Elections voter rolls and we were confident that we had secured the 1250 signatures required to get on the ballot. Had the enrollment issue not forced our early withdrawal from the race, we would now be doing battle with the Nadler camp over the petition signatures. I personally collected close to 400 of those signatures and would have welcomed the opportunity to go to bat against Nadler and company.

But it wasn’t enough that Sullivan wasn’t a Democrat, and that they were claiming that we didn’t have enough signatures. Childishly, the Nadler camp claimed that the designating petition volume was not paginated or bound pursuant to law. Section 6215.1 of the election law states that “the sheets of a petition shall be numbered sequentially at the foot of each sheet.” Now math was never my strong suit in grade school but as the person who numbered the sheets I will state affirmatively for the record that I recall that 2 comes after 1, 3 comes after 2 and so on and so forth. Oh, wait, I see what they’re complaining about—we ordered them in descending order, with page 157 on top and page 1 at the bottom. And for good reason, as we were still collecting petition signatures up until the evening of July 10th. I guess they didn’t like that.

As for being “bound,” that same section of the election law states that “any two or more petition sheets shall be securely fastened together by any means which will hold the pages together in numerical order.” Silly us—we made the mistake of being considerate of the overworked civil servants at the BOE. We assumed that the two holes punched into the top of our petition sheets by the printer were there for a reason. We used a hardboard backing and fastened the sheets together with metal rings that could be unfastened if someone needed to make copies of the sheets.

Ironically, the day before we filed, I called the BOE to ask if they had any guidance on the filing since I had not done it before. I was told that they did not give legal advice and to read the election law. I did, and we proceeded on that basis.

We knew that we had succeeded in getting Mr. Nadler’s attention when Robert Gottheim, Micah Lasher and company arrived at the BOE late in the evening of July 10th presumably to review the petitions we had filed that evening. Had someone tipped them off? Apparently, the congressman himself paid a visit to the offices at one point according to the log book. And what of those stories that started to emerge in the press about Sullivan’s enrollment even before the specific objections were filed on the 21st? Were Nadler and his cronies using the media to discredit us?

In sum, Jerry Nadler pulled out all the stops to quash the voices of those who had the temerity to call him on his failure to leverage his position as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and begin to hold the Bush administration accountable by bucking Pelosi and starting impeachment hearings. Is he the people’s representative or our adversary?

Despite all his efforts, and like the beleaguered combatant in the Monty Python skit, Jerry Nadler still has an impeachment fly buzzing around his head. When will he realize that it can’t be silenced? That it will be there buzzing in his ear next January when he again swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? That it may in fact come back to annoy him again with a future electoral challenge?

Or was that a new Jerry that we observed at yesterday’s hearing? At one point, he seemed almost ready to give impeachment a chance. That’s all we are saying, Jerry. Give impeachment a chance.

Chronology of Nadler's Constituents Urging Him to Initiate Impeachment Hearings

Chronology of Citizen Efforts to Lobby Rep. Nadler to Support Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney

Please note: This chronology has been drawn from first hand experience of members of the campaign committee for Sullivan For Congress. It is extensive but by no means complete. Eighth CD constituents and Democratic organizations have been calling, emailing, and writing letters to Rep. Nadler for well over a year. Daniel Weisfeld of Rep. Nadler’s Manhattan office confirmed that call volume regarding impeachment has been very heavy, but when asked how many calls and correspondence the Congressman has received, Robert Gottheim, the Manhattan District Director, refused to answer. Copies of the correspondence listed below, including handwritten postcards, are available on request.


Spring 2007
• Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) CD-08 requests a meeting to discuss impeachment. Robert Gottheim (Gottheim) indicates that Rep. Nadler does not support impeachment and refuses to schedule a meeting.
• Democratic clubs Village Independent Democrats (VID), Downtown Independent Democrats (DID), and Coalition for a District Alternative (CoDA) pass club endorsed resolutions and jointly send a letter urging Rep. Nadler to support impeachment.
• Chelsea Reform Democratic Club (CRDC) drafts and sends its own letter urging Rep. Nadler to support impeachment.

Summer 2007
• PDA CD-08 makes a second request for a meeting.
• Independent group of citizen activists collectively sends a letter signed by 24 concerned citizens requesting a meeting.
• Political organization World Can’t Wait (WCW) requests a meeting and stages a sit in at the Manhattan office.
• Informal poll of CD-08 constituents conducted on www.DailyKos.com. Ninety-five percent support impeachment or censure of Bush and Cheney with 92% of that group favoring impeachment.
• Democracy For New York City (DFNYC) conducts a survey re impeachment with results showing 84% support impeachment.
• On August 28, 2007 Rep. Nadler meets with a group of about 20 constituents, including members of the executive boards of three Democratic clubs in the 8th CD. At the meeting Rep. Nadler indicates he is open to changing his mind and agrees to a private meeting with constitutional experts John Nichols, the Nation columnist who authored The Genius of Impeachment and Bruce Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan. Rep. Nadler later declines after weeks of follow up calls to arrange a date and time for the meeting.

Fall 2007
• Beginning in September, VID conducts a tabling effort to collect letters regarding impeachment from pedestrians at Union Square on weekends. Letters are forwarded to Congressional representatives. By January nearly 300 letters have been collected and sent to Rep. Nadler with copies to Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
• PDA CD-08 hand delivers 35 personally written letters from constituents.
• In December 2007 a group of constituents commence a leafleting effort to educate constituents and attendees at events where Rep. Nadler is speaking.

Winter 2008
• AskNadler2Impeach.org is formed by a group of concerned citizen activists. Ask Nadler2Impeach.org’s first action is to present a letter signed by 143 citizen activists urging Rep. Nadler to support impeachment. The 143 signatures represent a significant increase from the 24 who signed the July 2007 letter. Additional signatures could easily have been collected had time allowed.
• AskNadler2Impeach.org launches an online petition calling on Rep. Nadler to support impeachment. As of July 20, 2008 there are 2386 signatures.
• AskNadler2Impeach.org organizes the March 9, 2008 Town Hall Meeting “Is Impeachment Necessary to Protect the Constitution?” in an effort to engage Rep. Nadler in a dialogue with Constitutional experts and concerned constituents. Speakers include Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served in Congress during the Nixon impeachment and co-wrote The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, and Harper’s columnist and law professor Scott Horton. (Fein and Holtzman are scheduled to testify at hearings in the House Judiciary Committee regarding executive offenses on Friday, July 25, 2008.) Despite having been invited a month in advance, when the meeting was organized, Rep. Nadler declines to participate on the Friday evening before the Sunday event. Roughly 300 people attend hoping to hear Rep. Nadler defend his position on impeachment from a Constitutional perspective.
• March 9, 2008 Town Hall meeting attendees handwrite personal messages on post cards to Rep. Nadler regarding impeachment. It is common knowledge that Congressional staffs consider handwritten correspondence to be a serious indication of constituent concern. Copies of a selection of these post cards are available.
• WCW conducts a sit-in at Rep. Nadler’s Brooklyn office. Four women are arrested at Gottheim’s request and spend the night in jail in deplorable conditions.
• Independent citizens and activists begin leafleting and protesting at Rep. Nadler appearances at events in the 8th CD.
• As more evidence regarding Bush administration impeachable offenses become public, requests are made for a follow-up meeting to the August 28, 2007 meeting. When Rep. Nadler refuses to meet again with constituents, a group begins a weekly picket in front of his Manhattan office. On March 29, 2008 Rep. Nadler’s staff invites the protest group upstairs for a meeting. This group includes 8th CD Congressional candidate Adam Sullivan who thanks Rep. Nadler for his time at the end of the meeting and tells him “We’ll be back”.
• WCW begins a weekly series of sit-ins at Rep. Nadler’s Brooklyn and Manhattan offices and a flyering campaign in the 8th CD.

Spring and Summer 2008
• Members of AskNadler2Impeach.org produce a DVD of the March 9th Town Hall presentations and travel to Washington, DC to meet with members of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee to hand deliver copies of the DVD and discuss impeachment.
• A group forms to field a candidate to run against Rep. Nadler in the September 9, 2008 Democratic Primary. Adam Sullivan becomes the candidate and volunteers collect 1946 signatures supporting his pro-impeachment campaign platform. Sullivan’s ballot petitions are filed with the Board of Elections on July 10, 2008 and he immediately challenges Rep. Nadler to debate the necessity of impeachment to protect the Constitution. Rep. Nadler does not respond, but days later reports surface in the local press quoting sources as questioning Sullivan’s status as a Democrat and discussing issues with his ballot petitions. Two general objections are filed listing Robert Gottheim as the objection contact. On Monday, July 21, 2008, specific objections to Sullivan's petitions are filed.

Adam Sullivan's July 22 Statement to the Press

Statement of Adam Sullivan
Candidate for Democratic Nomination, 8th Congressional District
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Thank you for coming.

In February of this year, I sought an opportunity to join with activists in encouraging Congress to begin impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I learned that a group had formed in my community specifically to address the issue with Congressman Jerrold Nadler, whom I knew to be my representative in the House.

Like many of his constituents, I was dismayed to learn of Mr. Nadler’s position on the impeachment issue. I volunteered to work with the group AskNadler2Impeach.org, as they prepared a town hall meeting. Held at Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village and entitled “Is Impeachment Necessary to Protect the Constitution?” the program was to feature several constitutional scholars and experts of national renown, including Liz Holtzman and Bruce Fein, sharing the stage with Congressman Nadler. All invited speakers would be free to address the issue as they chose. Unfortunately, Mr. Nadler declined to attend. His office informed us of his decision less than 48 hours before the start of the meeting, although he had received his invitation a month in advance.

At that time, I still believed that if we could just reach the Congressman we might convince him to do the right thing.

After the town hall, which was a great success and attended by 300 people including many from Congressman Nadler’s district, we tried protests and picketing outside his Varick Street office. On one of these occasions we received an invitation to an impromptu meeting, so six of us left the protest to go upstairs. It was exciting. Here was the opportunity I had hoped for: obviously the Congressman wanted to hear from his constituents, and once he had listened he might be swayed.

Unfortunately, he did not seem willing to listen, but rather spent most of the 45-minute-long meeting talking. This time I heard his litany of arguments against impeachment directly: there is no time, no support, not enough votes, it’s a distraction, it’s politically charged, it could backfire on the Democrats in the coming election, the media will have a field day, the administration will stonewall anyway and perhaps even claim executive privilege. Mr. Nadler also suggested that he had a better idea than impeachment: an office of special counsel which would look directly into matters of abuse of executive power. Mr. Nadler mentioned that such an office may not be seen as Constitutional, but he was looking into it.

There it was: my congressman—who sought and attained the chairmanship of the Subcommittee of the Judiciary on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and who has sworn an Oath of Office eight separate times to protect and defend the source of all our laws and liberties—was claiming that the fulfillment of his sworn duty was just too hard. Better to seek safer, easier and potentially unconstitutional remedies after Bush has left office in January rather than to make use of the remedy that the Framers of the Constitution saw fit to include six separate times in its first three Articles: Impeachment.

I was having none of it. As he took his leave, I told the congressman and his staff that we would be back. We were left to return to our lives, and think about what we’d heard. I began to deconstruct his arguments, both privately and with other activists, and arrived at a few conclusions.

When he said there was no time, he was simply wrong. Impeachment proceedings for both Nixon and Clinton took only a few months. A distraction? Wrong again. While the Judiciary works on impeachment, other committees can work on other legislation. Not enough support? I cannot assume, based on his intransigence on the issue, that Congressman Nadler ever sought support for impeachment to begin with. If he did, he kept it quiet.

Could the hearings be seen as politically motivated? Could the media spin it unkindly? These are possible, but not relevant. Fulfilling your Oath of Office means you are prepared to take a few knocks. As for the coming election, there is no historical precedent for a shift of power toward the impeached President’s party in the following election. In fact the Democratic Party was ultimately rewarded with a 20-year majority in Congress after seeking impeachment of Richard Nixon. The people of the United States understand justice. They reward those who further the cause of justice, usually with votes.

But it was the suggestion that there is a better way than impeachment to prosecute gross abuses of executive power that truly offended me. Apparently the congressman believes he knows better than the Framers of the Constitution how to deal with a rogue Executive, but the fact that Bush and Cheney still occupy their offices and thumb their noses at Congress suggests otherwise.

To my knowledge, the congressman has not used the prestige associated with his important chairmanship to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution which will eliminate the language of impeachment and replace it with something else. Failing this, his suggested remedies are doomed to challenges of their constitutionality. In the meantime we have impeachment, a sharp sword if only the Democrats would wield it. It would be used to expose Bush and Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors, and for their violations of the Constitution and of U.S. and international laws. It would hamper these men as they seek to entangle our military in another illegal war, this time in Iran and possibly making use of our nuclear arsenal. And it would send a message to future presidents: discharge your office faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution, or you face the strict scrutiny of Congress.

Congressman Nadler may appear to have a progressive voting record, but in no way does he evidence the leadership that we all deserve from the Democratic Party. His outright contempt for the process of impeachment makes him unfit to serve as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. His abandonment of the Constitution in its hour of greatest need—when he has sworn an Oath of Office eight times to protect and defend it, when he could use his Chairmanship to draw his district’s and perhaps the nation’s attention to impeachment proceedings, when criminals and scoundrels freely roam the halls of the White House and acquire greater and greater unchecked power; power that has been used to lie us into an unnecessary and illegal war, increase the disparities between rich and poor, between the powerful and powerless—all of this makes Representative Nadler complicit in our nation’s current suffering and the assaults on our freedoms.

In your press kits you will find a list, by no means comprehensive but lengthy nevertheless, of instances wherein Mr. Nadler’s constituents approached him on the issue of impeachment. This encompasses far more than just a handful of people on the fringe; rather the list demonstrates that the call for hearings was heard throughout his district, inside Democratic clubs, and from significant numbers of his base, beginning almost two years ago and continuing through to the present day. Astoundingly, the congressman’s position has changed not one iota in response.

Representative Nadler is not alone in this, it is true. Much of the leadership of the National Democratic Party is complicit in this disgrace, and it may on the surface seem unfair that I should ask Mr. Nadler to shoulder so much of the blame. But Mr. Nadler sought his Subcommittee chairmanship, and chose to represent the majority on Constitutional matters. Incredibly, he claimed as recently as eight days ago that he has no special role in seeking such hearings, and that the party leadership decides whether or not to impeach. Fellow citizens, that is simply not the case. Articles of impeachment are introduced by individual representatives, as demonstrated by Dennis Kucinich of Ohio who seems to be one of a handful of statesmen on Capitol Hill who are entirely clear on the concept.

All my young life I grew up with a distinct impression of the Democratic Party. I saw it as the party that represents the small, the weak, the meek; the party of the downtrodden, of the struggling; the party that seeks to give voice to a minority, even when it holds the majority. It was the party of labor, of civil rights, of justice and peace. In October of 1974, John Conyers remarked, “Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free.” That is the Democratic Party I grew up with.

But our Congressman, the Democrat from the Eighth District of New York, is content to wait until January. Because impeachment is too hard.

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

After meeting with Representative Nadler some of us began to work on a potential primary challenge, in the hopes that forcing the Congressman to defend himself publicly would draw attention to the issue of impeachment, and perhaps even compel him to change his position. This idea was very appealing to me, as it employed the democratic process in a positive, constructive way. After all, if you’re unhappy with your elected representative, you can seek to replace him. That’s the point of democracy.

After two other candidates came forward but then chose to step down for their own reasons, I offered myself as candidate. It was a hasty decision, but not unconsidered. I wanted my congressman to face the challenge he had earned, even if that meant some risk to myself, even if it meant fielding a political novice to seek national office.

Having grown up in a Democratic household and having consistently voted Democratic, I always associated myself with the Democratic Party. The fact was, though, that after moving to New York City in 1997, I had registered as unaffiliated, largely because I felt that the Party no longer sufficiently represented the progressive values that I cherished. When I made the decision to run against Mr. Nadler, I filled out a voter registration card to change my enrollment but, in my haste, did not mention doing so to the campaign. I assumed that my new enrollment would be current at the time of petition filing, which I now know not to be the case. Members of my campaign assumed that I was a properly enrolled Democrat. The fault in this is entirely mine, since it was my responsibility as the candidate to know the rules. But as we needed to begin collecting signatures—and there was not a moment to lose—we moved forward. As we did so, each one of us believed that I was a registered Democrat.

I ran for congress because I saw that my congressman could make a difference if he chose to. I regret if I have let down my supporters but given the rules I cannot in good faith continue this campaign through to the primary. Therefore, I am no longer actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for the seat in Congress currently occupied by Mr. Nadler.

This does not change my commitment to the cause of impeachment. I will continue to seek other avenues, other ways to press my congressman on this issue. I may not have grasped New York State’s electoral rules and codes, but I am very clear on the Constitution. I will continue to support those in government who are truly progressive, who are committed to preserving the living Constitution, and who truly represent their constituents. With this in mind, I and others are making arrangements to travel to the nation’s capital on Friday, where we will assemble to show our support for Congressman Kucinich as he and others testify before the full House Judiciary Committee on the matter of the illegal war in Iraq and other related abuses of executive power.

To the people of New York City and of the United States, here is the message I’d like you to hear: that house on Capitol Hill is your house, and your representative is your public servant. If you do not like the way your representatives are keeping your house, then it’s time to take back the keys and look for someone better suited to the task. This is, and always has been, the essence of our Constitutional democracy.

In the United States of America, the Will of the People is sovereign.

Thank you.

Read a Chronology of Nadler's Constituents Urging Him to Initiate Impeachment Hearings

Nadler declares Bush has committed impeachable offenses

July 15, 2008, source: Democrats.com

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...

Rep. Nadler, what are you waiting for?

Let's look at some the events of the last few days, to see what they have in common:

1) Dennis Kucinich introduced a single new article of impeachment against the president, for his and his administration's lying us into a disastrous and illegal war;

2) Karl Rove not only failed to appear before the HJC on Thursday after being subpoenaed, but he skipped the country without notifying Congress(!);

3) Nancy Pelosi, in her signature style (vague, ambiguous, and vague again), made a statement which seemed to leave the door open for impeachment hearings (back on the table?);

4) I, Adam Sullivan, filed well in excess of the number of required petition signatures to gain ballot access for the Democratic primary here in NYC, where I am challenging Jerrold Nadler for his seat representing New York's Eighth Congressional District in the House.

From my perspective, this is a strong list of reasons for Mr. Nadler--who chairs the Subcommittee of the Judiciary on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties--to change his position on seeking to initiate impeachment hearings.

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

Mr. Kucinich, whose principles cannot be called into question, has put the single most important reason for impeachment in the spotlight, and wisely so. The war in Iraq has cost our nation lives (soldiers, contractors, journalists, others), economic strength (who doubts this anymore?) and our standing in the eyes of the world, when the events of September 11, 2001 might have been the catalyst for greater understanding between differing nations and religions.

And this war was knowingly marketed to this nation based on lies, false accusations, questionable intelligence and more lies. This is what the Framers feared might happen without effective checks against Executive power. They chose impeachment as the most powerful check, and gave it to Congress.

Congress cannot turn a blind eye to this Constitutional disaster. If impeachment hearings do not begin, we will have opened the door to a new American era, one in which we elect a king every four years. This is no exaggeration: Congress has abdicated every important power the Constitution grants it to the Executive Branch. If they truly believe that they can work with the next president--be he Obama or McCain--to restore and repair the Constitution and the Legislative Branch, then they are fools.

This is my great worry: that the men and women in Congress, while not bad or evil, are many of them either blind or foolish or simply lost. They have forgotten why they went there, and why they swore an Oath to protect and defend our great founding document.

Mr. Nadler, a powerful, popular and by all accounts progressive Democrat from New York's Eighth is by no means a bad man. But when I met with him personally, I was disappointed because it seemed that he had become lost in a maze of his own arguments, excuses and rationalizations. I was also disappointed that the meeting was mostly him talking; I'd thought he was going to listen to a group of the people he serves.

We, the Sullivan for Congress campaign, have decided to challenge Jerrold Nadler for his seat not because we think he's a bad man, but because it would give him a chance to become a better Congressman. The kind America needs more of, like Mr. Kucinich who places principle, service to the constituents of Ohio's 10th and to the Constitution above self-interest or partisan jockeying. Both Kucinich and Bob Wexler of Florida have had to face primary challenges because they support impeachment. Why shouldn't someone face a challenge who refuses to support it?

And if the People decide that they would rather have me than Jerrold Nadler to serve and represent them on Capitol Hill, then so be it. That's democracy: the will of the people is sovereign.

Congressman Nadler, if you are reading this, look around you. The administration continues to flout the authority of the HJC and your Subcommittee, and Karl Rove seems to think it's a joke. Mr. Kucinich has refocused his efforts to introduce impeachment by emphasizing a great, pertinent and as yet unanswered crime against the American people, Iraqi sovereignty and countless individuals and families devastated, directly or indirectly, by the costs of an illegal war.

And Ms. "Off the Table" Pelosi herself, for whatever reason, has put the ball in your court and in Conyers's. Impeachment is ON the table. The people are in your corner if you decide to initiate hearings.

And, oh yeah, you're being challenged in the Democratic primary on this issue. What are you still waiting for?

THE TIME IS NOW.

Power to the People,
Adam Sullivan

Should Dems Play Offense or Defense?

Video clip of David Swanson from Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org