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