Our Experience Bird-dogging Rep. Jerrold Nadler on Sunday

There were two opportunities to “bird-dog” Rep. Nadler this past Sunday at events where he was scheduled to appear in support of Hillary Clinton.  In the early afternoon he was at Hudson Guild at a candidates forum sponsored by Chelsea Reform Democrats.  Later he was at a NOW-NYC forum on How Critical is the Women’s Vote? featuring Congressman Jerrold Nadler, former Congresswoman and Brooklyn D.A. & NYC Comptroller Elizabeth Holtzman, and Sheryl McCarthy, USA Today & Newsday Columnist and Distinguished Lecturer in Journalism at CUNY.  I attended and flyered at the NOW-NYC event with a fellow PDA member and another concerned constituent and want to share our report with you.  However, first a disclaimer:  I have been under the weather with the nasty upper respiratory thing that has been going around and it sorely diminished my note taking abilities.  Also, I should mention that the report will focus on our experience with regard to Rep. Nadler and impeachment as opposed to the event itself.

The NOW event was a full house: my estimate is about 150 attended and some latecomers even stood. On the dais were Sonia Ossorio, current president of NOW-NYC, Rep. Nadler, Liz Holtzman, and Sheryl McCarthy (USA Today & Newsday journalist). Sonia introduced them and each gave a somewhat brief statement re their support for Hillary Clinton or Obama. McCarthy opened and said she would support either as a nominee, that the most important thing was to put a Democrat in office. Holtzman agreed and remarked that the country could not survive another four more years under a Republican President. She went on to say she supported Hillary Clinton and that her support went very far back to the Nixon impeachment when Hillary Clinton was a Congressional staffer working for the House Judiciary Committee. She said some nice things about Hillary Clinton being a humanitarian and a person with values who chose to work in government rather than accept a high paying corporate position.  

Rep. Nadler then spoke at length.  He began by describing the upcoming election as the most important in recent history.  He launched into a list of all the wrongs done this country by the current administration.  He asserted that they had shredded the Constitution and listed all of the reasons which make impeachment an imperative – inroads on civil liberties, imbalance of separation of powers, Executive aggrandizement, destruction of checks and balances, signing statements, torture, habeas corpus suspension, and more.  However, not once did he mention the word impeachment or the need to hold this administration accountable or address the issue of precedent.  He then sang Hillary Clinton’s praises.  Ironically he began by relating how he had been on the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment and how the research that he did in that capacity took him to the majority report that Hillary had co-written in 1974 and how he had been impressed then by her work.

Sonia Ossorio then asked if there were questions from the audience. The first question was from a man who turned out to be one of the writers on Democrats.com – thebluehighwayman.  I don’t remember what the question was nor the responses, but it was election related. The second question was from Elizabeth Sackler, who brought Judy Chicago’s “The Dinner Party” exhibit to The Brooklyn Museum.  Sackler is also founder of The American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation, http://www.repatriationfoundat…  I don’t recall her exact words – it was a long question – but the essence was that she questioned if we were paying attention to the right thing in our focus on elections – “if we had our eye on the ball” – and that instead we should be addressing accountability.  She started by saying that she was happy with some things (forget what exactly), but NOT happy that there has been no accountability for the administration and that she is not convinced they´re going to “give back the bone”, i.e. give up power and have elections, stating that she did not feel we had seen a true election since 1998.  For the first time that afternoon, the audience broke into applause.  I noticed that even the elderly woman sitting across from me who had appeared to be snoozing during the opening statements was enthusiastically clapping in agreement.  Holtzman jumped on this immediately, bringing up the “I word,” saying how she had written a book on impeachment and how she was convinced that impeachment was the only way we can make sure there is change. She turned to Rep. Nadler and said that she was certain that he was working on it as well. However, her comment about working on “it” was vague.  It could have been construed as in invitation to him to explain how he was also working on impeachment or it could have a diplomatic moment where she hoped he would step up to the plate.  My notes on this moment and Rep. Nadler’s response are less than perfect.  It was a convoluted response and I found myself asking the person next to me what he said.  Our conclusion is that he was saying that impeachment wasn’t the “right solution.”  He responded that it wasn’t the forum to get into impeachment, and that his solution was to enact legislation that would remove the Executive inroads into power and restore checks and balances, etc. under a Democratic President. He talked about state secrets legislation and his FISA telecom immunity bill (complaining how the liberal blogs have overlooked what the House has done with their preoccupation with the Senate).  Rep. Nadler did share that a little noticed paragraph the Dems inserted into a recent bill extended the statute of limitations from 5 to 10 years (or something similar) and that with a Democratic President they will prosecute Bush for wiretapping etc. in 2009 or 2010.  I am tempted to editorialize here about how likely this is given Congress’ current record, but will let you fill in the blanks.  Unfortunately, this wasn’t a forum where you could follow up on Sackler’s question and get into the issue deeply. The conversation moved on to a more election focused discussion comparing the strengths and weaknesses of Clinton, Obama, and at times Edwards.

I wasn’t able to ask the question I had in mind which was regarding Hillary Clinton’s lack of support for habeas corpus.  On a blazing hot July day this past summer I traveled before dawn with the ACLU to DC to lobby Congress on habeas corpus.  About 300 of us signed up to meet with Hillary Clinton.  Not only did she not make time to meet with 300 constituents who had traveled five hours by bus to meet with her, but the two representatives she sent –  her legislative aide and her deputy counsel – ducked our questions the same way that we have seen Bush’s various press representatives deal with the Washington press corps.  The one straight answer they gave to us is that she did not support Senator Dodd’s amendment Restoring the Constitution Act (S. 576).  Instead she supported the weaker version, Senator Spector and Leahy’s Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (S. 185) which was more limited in scope in addressing the problems the Military Commissions Act caused in undermining the Constitution and the rule of law.

Restoration of habeas corpus is  something that Rep. Nadler had been working very hard on in the House.  He too was on our list of Congressional reps to visit and I have written to him and about him relating how impressed I was with the level of respect he accorded us in the meeting we had with him.  I have wondered for a long time how he justified support of Hillary Clinton given his position as the Chair of the Judiciary Sub-Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and his work on habeas corpus.  I would have preferred to ask him in a public forum, but settled for asking him privately as he was leaving, reminding him of the day when I was in his DC office with the ACLU.  He didn’t recognize me and asked who I was and when I told him my name, he stiffened and tried to brush me off – no doubt expecting to hear about impeachment. I told him about our experience with Hillary Clinton that day and her refusal to support full restoration and his response was that he didn’t know what happened in the Senate, but focused on his work in the House. I found it surprising that he wouldn’t be on top of what was happening in both Houses with regard to key legislation and issues.

I then asked Rep. Nadler to support the call for impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. He became visibly angry and told me “I thought I made my position clear an hour and a half ago.” I had no idea what he was talking about and told him so. He refused to believe me and then it occurred to me that he must have been referring to the earlier event and I said “oh you must mean in Chelsea.”  I told him I was not there and had decided to attend this event, but that it was clear that constituents in his district are not happy with the position he is taking on impeachment. He began to move away from me to get out of having to discuss it further and someone else came up and began speaking with him. The National Arts Guild is a nice place and NOW had a lovely spread of wine, cheeses, pates, crudites, etc. and I think he was trying to decide if he should stay.

However, not long after, I noticed he was speaking with the person who asked the first question of the afternoon, thebluehighwayman from democrats.com. They were talking about impeachment and thebluehighwayman had a copy of Holtzman’s book with him.  I began to pay attention when I heard him asking Rep. Nadler about the oath he swore to defend the Constitution. I didn’t hear Rep. Nadler’s reply but it looked like he blew him off too, mumbling, and then headed for the door. He was not happy.

I found out later that at the event in Chelsea, there were many questions about impeachment and the crowd was overwhelmingly in favor.  It seems that being bird-dogged does not sit well with Rep. Nadler.  He is clearly annoyed, even angry, yet he seems determined to ignore us and do what he pleases.  The folks with me watched me talking with him and saw him become angry and dismissive. They were aghast at his introduction where he spoke at length about civil rights, only to be followed by his evasive response to Elizabeth Sackler promising that a Democratic President would criminally prosecute, and then his intransigence with me.  After the Congressman left I stayed and “worked the crowd” and found many people in favor of impeachment and shocked that Rep. Nadler wasn’t doing more. I even spoke for a bit with a woman who is a self-proclaimed conservative who had attended with her sister at her sister’s urging to see “the other side.” She said that we would be surprised – they are saying the same things at the Republican events she attends – universal dislike for Bush and desire for change, and she and I were specifically discussing impeachment. I wish there had been another half hour to talk with more people but I got caught up with three feisty Latinas and suddenly the National Arts Guild was picking up glasses and making the hors d’oeuvres disappear. It was time to go.

I hope that someone who attended the Chelsea Decision ’08 forum writes up what happened earlier in the afternoon.  And I hope that thebluehighwayman publishes a report on Democrats.com about his impression of the NOW-NYC event.

It seems with primary season in full swing, it is likely that Rep. Nadler will be out stumping for Hillary Clinton in the district.  He refuses to meet with constituents to discuss impeachment – or in my opinion remember his oath of office to defend the Constitution – but chances are there will be additional opportunities to meet up with him at these events to reinforce that his constituents want him to support the call for hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.  I will keep you informed of additional opportunities to bird-dog Rep. Nadler and hope you will join me.  On Sunday afternoon, the applause that broke out after Elizabeth Sackler raised the issue of accountability clearly indicated the level of support for impeachment.  What will it take for our Congressman to listen to and acknowledge his responsibility to his constituents and support impeachment hearings?