Contact Rep. Olver: TEL: 202-225-5335 . FAX: 202-226-1224
January 15, 2008
By Evan Lehmann, Berkshire Eagle
WASHINGTON — An energetic impeachment activist is threatening to challenge U.S. Rep. John W. Olver in this year's primary election if the Amherst Democrat fails to support the prosecution of President Bush by Jan. 25. Robert Feuer, a Stockbridge lawyer and chairman of the town Democratic committee, laid down the deadline recently in a lengthy e-mail to Olver's chief of staff, Hunter Ridgway.
"The president has indicted himself on torture and wiretapping, and if this 110th Democratic Congress does not commence impeachment hearings, its Democrats will not see the light of day at the 2008 polls," Feuer warned in the e-mail.
Olver opposes impeachment. He says Republican lawmakers could effectively block the proceedings after a bitter partisan fight, delaying passage of domestic legislation, frustrating attempts to end the Iraq war and imperiling Democratic presidential aspirations. "I don't expect John's position to change, but he does understand and feel the same frustration that so many others feel with the president," Ridgway said of impeachment activists.
Feuer, 66, has made a name for himself among New England impeachment activists by speaking at events
Ever wonder why Congress is not holding Bush-Cheney accountable, not using their constitutional power to exercise their authority and impeach the most impeachable executives in our nation’s history? Rep. John Olver (D-MA) has provided a rationale to his constituents that demonstrates how much worse off the country may be then we know.
Rep. Olver is no radical in Congress, indeed he is in the leadership of the Democratic Party serving as Senior Whip for the Democratic Caucus. He has served in Congress for 17 years and prior to that served 24 years in the state legislature of Massachusetts. He has a Ph.D. in chemistry from MIT. His website demonstrates that he is a “meat and potatoes” congressman who seems to spend most of his time bringing economic development dollars to his home district. See http://www.house.gov/olver
Congressman Olver, who represents the 1st District (the Stockbridge area) of Massachusetts, was presented with resolutions for impeachment passed by 13 towns in his congressional district by 2/3 margins. In response he vehemently refused to support impeachment because he expressed the opinion that if the Congress impeached the president would attack Iran by air, declare a national emergency institute martial law and cancel the 2008 elections.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA.
The video above is from a fundraiser for Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US) held at Bus Boys and Poets in Washington, DC last night.
Kevin Zeese
Director, Democracy Rising
The meeting at the Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts on July 5, 2007 was anything but routine. Seated before Cong. John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills.
The subject—impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.
The request—that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress.
More than just opinion was being conveyed to Cong. Olver, a then 70 year old Massachusetts liberal with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These Americans voted overwhelmingly during formal annual town meetings in 14 towns and two cities in the First District endorsing resolutions to impeach the President and Vice President.
Presented in the form of petitions to be sent to the Congress, the approving citizenry cited at least four “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They included the initiation of the Iraq war based on defrauding the public and intentionally misleading the Congress, spying on Americans without judicial authorization, committing the torture of prisoners in violation of both federal law and the U.N. Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, and stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights by jailing them indefinitely without charges and without access to legal counsel or even an opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a court of law.
Forty towns in Vermont and the State Senate had already presented their Congressional delegation with similar petitions.
Impeachment advocates reported the results to Cong. Olver from each town meeting. Leverett’s vote was 339-1; Great Barrington was 100-3. No vote in any of the towns or cities was less than a two-third majority “yes” in favor of impeachment, according to long-time activist, Atty. Robert Feuer of Stockbridge, Mass.
With three fourths of reports completed Cong. Olver, who voted against the war, raised his hand and said, “Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment.” He then told them he would not sign on to any impeachment resolution whether against Bush or against Cheney (H.Res. 333 introduced by Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)). He was quite adamant.
In taking this unrepresentative position, Rep. Olver’s position was identical to that of the House Democratic leadership and many of his Democratic colleagues. The Democratic Party line on impeachment is that Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable White House duo in American history (they believe this privately). The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage. Moreover, they do not have the votes to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the members present for conviction in the Senate.
Strangely, none of these excuses bothered Republicans when they impeached Bill Clinton in the House for lying under oath about sex and proceeded to a full trial in the Senate where they failed to get the required votes. Can Clinton’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” begin to compare with this White House crime wave?
The last question to Cong. Olver was from a young veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan. “What could we possibly do to bring you around to our way of thinking,” he asked? Cong. Olver’s response, after several seconds of silence, was “You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive.”
Members of Congress should apply the same standard to themselves that they like to apply to members of the Executive and Judicial branches—namely to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Oath is supposed to transcend political calculations.
Maybe the Democrats think that Bush and Cheney are such wild and crazy guys that a serious impeachment drive in Congress would provoke the two draft-dodgers to launch a military emergency, strike Iran or otherwise generate a crisis, based on their continual fulminations about the “war on terror,” that would engulf the Democrats and throw them on the defensive for 2008.
In short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don’t even try to remove it.
Such a cowardly position would make quite a precedent for future Presidents who want to illegally elbow out the other two branches of government and our Constitution.
Rep. Olver:
TEL: 202-225-5335 . FAX: 202-226-1224