Dear Mr. Sandersfeld:

Thanks for your message in support of impeaching the President, Vice President, or both. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I share your outrage at the administration's many transgressions over the last six-plus years. I have used my voice and my vote to oppose the administration on multiple fronts. I have always opposed the war in Iraq. I voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. I voted against the legislation establishing military tribunals, which also included provisions retroactively immunizing administration officials for authorizing torture and provisions allowing the President to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge. I voted against legislation authorizing warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I have led the effort to prevent the administration from attacking Iran without congressional authorization. Despite my long and vocal record of opposition to the administration's harmful policies, I believe that impeachment is a dubious strategy that will fail to bring about the change our country needs.

Supporters of impeachment need to ask themselves a question: is the primary goal to attempt to personally punish the President and Vice President or is it to reverse the many detrimental policies that have been enacted over the last six years?

If it is the former, then I can understand why individuals would believe an attempt to impeach is the best option. But, if it is the latter, which is what I think the goal should be, then impeachment will not work because even if Members of the House put aside all urgent issues and consumed the next six months with impeachment and then voted to impeach, the Senate will never vote to convict the President or Vice President and remove them from office, meaning at the end of the process they will remain in office with their policies unchanged and all that will have been accomplished is a 6-12 month delay in trying to overturn their harmful policies.

The reason I draw that conclusion is based on the math in the Senate. Even with the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, there are only 51 Senators that caucus with the Democratic Party (including two independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). Even if all of these individuals supported impeachment (an unlikely prospect given the large number of conservative Democrats, not to mention Senator Lieberman), it would still require 16 Republicans to vote to convict the President or Vice President (2/3rds of the Senate, 67 votes, are needed to convict and remove from office). There is no evidence that any Republicans, let alone the 16 or likely more that would be required, will consider voting in favor of impeachment.

Proponents of impeachment generally point to three primary reasons to justify their call: the war in Iraq, the authorization of torture, and the erosion of civil liberties, including warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detentions.

While I understand the concern about these policies, for the most part, Congress has authorized the President to carry them out (as I noted, I have voted no). It is pretty hard to argue that the President and Vice President can be impeached over policies they have been authorized to carry out by the Congress.

With respect to Iraq, Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq by passing an authorization of force resolution in October 2024 allowing the President broad discretion to take military action as he saw fit. I voted no.

Some argue that the congressional action was taken only because the administration manipulated intelligence in order to convince Congress to authorize the war. While the administration clearly did so, in my opinion, it is a cop-out for Members of Congress to use that excuse. I attended the classified briefings and I knew that the administration's case was full of holes and was purely speculative. There wasn't actually any evidence presented. It was all conjecture (which I pointed out in my floor statement against the bill authorizing the war). Any member who claims they were mislead is just refusing to take responsibility for their own vote. It was plain to see for anyone willing to show the slightest skepticism toward what was presented.

Is it reasonable to impeach the President and Vice President for a war that Congress authorized, no matter how careless Congress was in doing so?

Regarding the warrantless wiretapping program, I agree that this program violates federal law and the Constitution. But, the administration has a series of legal arguments on why the program is legal. I disagree, but the administration's arguments have not been fully tested in court, so who's right? One court ruled that the administration's program was unconstitutional. Yet, the Supreme Court just threw out that case arguing that the individuals did not have standing to sue because they couldn't prove they were harmed by the government action. Is it really possible to impeach a president because he and some Members of Congress have differing legal interpretations on an issue and the courts have not ruled who is right?

Further, Congress just approved legislation retroactively authorizing the President's warrantless wiretapping program, which makes it even more difficult to argue the President can be impeached over it. I voted against the bill.

With respect to additional attacks on our civil liberties, the administration has pointed to the USA PATRIOT Act to justify many of their actions. I voted against this law. But, again, is it reasonable to impeach the President and Vice President because they are using a law willing passed by a majority in Congress?

Regarding torture and military tribunals, Congress approved legislation last fall just before the election (which I voted against) authorizing military tribunals, indefinite detentions, and the suspension of habeas corpus. This legislation also included provisions providing retroactive immunity to members of the administration who authorized torture. Is it really possible to impeach a President for policies that Congress has retroactively endorsed by approving this immunization and by pro-actively authorizing indefinite detentions and military tribunals?

I have also heard that the administration's excessive secrecy warrants impeachment. Well, so far, the administration has won the only court case related to their secrecy. Vice President Cheney won his case against the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when GAO was seeking documents related to his energy task force. The Supreme Court ruled that Cheney could keep that information secret. The administration's claims of executive privilege with respect to the U.S. attorneys scandal have yet to be tested in court.

My basic point is that, yes, the administration has done a lot of awful things. But, unfortunately, for six years they had Republican majorities in Congress that authorized and funded the administration's policies, which makes it difficult to now turn around and say the President and Vice President should be impeached for these very same policies.

Just because an impeachment strategy is certain to end in failure doesn't mean Congress is impotent in terms of holding the administration accountable or reversing harmful policies.

I have advocated for an aggressive strategy of hearings, investigations (including the use of subpoena power) and legislation to overturn the administration's harmful policies.

This strategy is already bearing fruit. Although there are not yet quite enough votes in Congress to force a change in the President's Iraq policy, the President has been seriously challenged on Iraq since the Democratic takeover via both hearings and legislation. There have been multiple votes on bringing our troops home and establishing enforceable benchmarks for the administration's policy. This is something that did not happen under Republican control when the President was provided whatever he wanted with no questions asked. Further, the aggressive Democratic oversight has contributed to crumbling support for the President and his war even among members of his own party as evidenced by the recent public defections of key Republican senators.

Further the investigation and hearings into the political firings of U.S. Attorneys (again, something that never would have happened under the prior Republican leadership in Congress) have led to the resignation of several senior Justice Department personnel, including the Attorney General.

And, while the administration continues to try to obstruct various investigations, Democratic leaders have not been shy about threatening to issue contempt citations and to take the administration to court to enforce subpoenas for testimony and documents.

Finally, I am concerned that pursuing impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of Congress, bringing all other issues to a halt and making it impossible to make progress on other priorities, such as taking on the oil companies; reorienting our energy policies toward clean, renewable electricity and fuels, as well as conservation; reforming and funding the No Child Left Behind law; expanding access to health insurance and affordable health care; among many other issues you and I care about.

Since impeachment will not succeed in the Senate, pursuing it will not actually do anything to hold the administration accountable or overturn harmful policies. It would be a hollow effort. So the choice is real action via hearings, investigations and legislation, or symbolic action that won't change anything via impeachment. I prefer real action.

That said, for those concerned that a message needs to be sent to future presidents, I am a cosponsor of H.Res. 530, a resolution censuring President Bush for his manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, the leaking of the identity of an undercover CIA agent's name, and the pardoning of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Passage of this resolution, which only requires a majority vote, would send a powerful signal to future presidents and congresses.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.