I know, I know — it’s been a whole week since any Vermont impeachment news. And after Philip Baruth sang our praises for our coverage! After daily hits from places like michaelmoore.com and google searches aplenty, all looking for impeachment news! Well, at GMD we aim to please…

…and there are several bits of information to report, mostly from the rumor mill. I prefer to wait until things have clarified, but what’s a blog without a little gossiping?

First of all, contrary to reports of a massacre, grassroots efforts to call for the impeachment of the worst President in history as loudly as possible continue. And though Democrats in the Legislature have opted not to take the matter up collectively, the grassroots push is finding other avenues…. (click link for who’s doing what in Vermont, Maine, Washington, etc.)

Key points:

* Mighty Burlington may be the next Vermont municipality to tackle a Newfane-style resolution. There’s rumbling…

* There seem to be mixed emotions on the matter among the Democratic caucus post-State Committee meeting. Rep. Dick Marek, who supported the Newfane town resolution but spoke out against the Section 603 resolution (with an argument debunked below) is now circulating a letter calling on the Vermont Congressional delegation to push for “investigation”, and it has 56 legislative signatures! It seems many of the Dems are comfortable calling for action individually but not collectively — and they remain deathly uncomfortable with the word “impeachment” outside of a town meeting. Could be a lot of reasons for this — some of them reasonable, some of them not-so-much. Marek is a good guy, though, so GMD will give him the benefit of the doubt. Still wish he didn’t feel the need to suggest that a 603 resolution would be somehow “unconstitutional” though. Obviously folks a bit closer to the source of that founding document didn’t think so (the procedure is from the Jefferson Manual after all — a manual compiled of procedures based on early precedent not idle fantasies — impeachment proponents hardly made it up).

* On April 30th, the Progressive Party State Committee meets, and I’ve heard from three seperate sources that they will be looking at passing a “Rutland Resolution” with the Section 603 language intact. There’s continued suggestion that Rep Zuckerman may retrofit his existing impeachment motion to include such language. At the end of the day, though, consensus is clearly that any action on April 30th would meet everybody’s definition of “too late” to act upon, so the motion wouldn’t have any immediate impact — beyond that of another body of Vermont citizens calling for the Congress to throw the bum out (which is certainly a good thing).

* Vermont continues to inspire! As this post from an earlier diary passes on from Maine:

-OGUNQUIT — If a group of Ogunquit residents have their way, the warrant for the June 13 town election will include an article that asks voters to request senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to call for the Senate to censure President George Bush. The residents are circulating a petition to collect the signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot.

“Part of what prompted this was an article in the paper about some towns in Vermont that passed [resolutions] to impeach,” said Paul McGowan, one of the leaders of the petition drive. “What struck me about this was, what a great way to have a voice. It brought some focus to people’s concern and worry about the direction of the country. It’s about a way that a small town could have a voice and raise questions about the actions of the President.”

Jack Leary, another member of the group, said it was time for local action. “Nothing’s happening from the top down,” Leary said. “So, we thought we’d go from the bottom up.”

Cool, huh?

* Supporters of the original Rutland Resolution intend to honor signatures on the online petition for Vermont Legislative action under Section 603 by keeping up the push for a critical mass of signatures, both online and in traditional hardcopy. Supporters are aiming for 5000 signatories and expect that number to be enough to trigger review under the Vermont Constitution — but instead of scrambling to get something in before the Legislative Session ends, they’re targeting the first week of the next Legislature. Should be plenty of time to collect names, and the “too late in the session” excuse will be a little harder to repeat.

* Regarding the Town Impeachment efforts, rumor is that supporters and representatives from the towns may gather in Washington to present the motions directly to their respective Representatives on or about May 1st — which means that by deflecting the issue away from the State Legislature, the spotlight will now shine even more brightly on Bernie Sanders himself. Which is a bit ironic because…

* …Vermont’s delegation to Washington clearly doesn’t like this impeachment business. Bernie has been all over the map, starting with calling it impractical after the Newfane resolution, turning around and signing onto the impeachment bill currently circulating in the US House, and then going back to talking about what a loopy idea it is. In addition, before the Dem State Committee meeting on the 8th (and again at the meeting itself), Democratic National Committeeman and Leahy staffer Chuck Ross made an 11th hour attempt to convince supporters on the State Committee to abandon the key Jefferson Manual language.

The final arguments from the Washington direction seem to boil down to two things, both of which were echoed by State legislators. One: that Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual does not require a State legislature initiated impeachment motion to be taken up by the US House (uh-oh, I hear another impeachment advocacy argument coming on…duck!). Of course, more than a cursory glance at supporters’ arguments will show that they never made that definitive claim. That, again, the whole idea was that principle demanded they make as loud a noise as possible, and the Jefferson Manual simply provided for an extraordinarily loud megaphone. Whether the motion actually got to the House floor or not was, frankly, secondary.

Two: That such a motion would somehow rob Bush of his fundamental right to “due process.”

Let’s set aside for a moment that this suggests impeachment is a judicial procedure rather than an administrative one. It is not a court of law, but a rather pointed job review, after all.

Still, if one still insists on making a judicial analogy, then let’s make it completely. In such an analogy, the US Senate is clearly the “court of law.” The US House, as the body that draws up the “indictment” plays the role of the “investigative officers” and the “district attorney.” What does that leave for a State Legislature under Section 603?

Simply the role of an aggrieved complainant filing a police report. The police hardly turn away a citizen filing a police report because the subject of the report hasn’t yet been offered their due process. Obviously that comes later — it is in fact initiated by the complaint.

So — thin reasoning. Unnecessarily so. Especially when the real reason for resistance from candidates running for local, state or federal office is fairly straightforward and easy to understand and appreciate:

1. Elections are strategic endeavors.

4. So they don’t like it.

Simple. Straightforward. Reasonable. Understandable.

And an explanation that would’ve gone over a bit better, and not resulted in several people scratching their heads a few days later after they had time to think about the excuses they were given.

So we continue to agree to disagree, with impeachment proponents still feeling ethically compelled to speak as loudly as possible, and through as many avenues as are available to them. Maybe they’ll get a little farther next session, maybe not.

That’s Democracy for ya.