Conyers on Impeachment: "I've got the constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other"

[sabra]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526252

<snip>

AMY GOODMAN: Why would impeachment hearings put the election in jeopardy?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, because unless I’ve got the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, so I’ve got any kind of hearings on removing both the President and the Vice President -- or putting it in reverse, remove the Vice President and then the President -- within the months remaining, would require 218 votes in the House of Representatives. That’s my calculator giving me this information. And then, in the Senate we need two-thirds to convict. Notwithstanding all of my progressive friends that would love to see me start impeachment hearings, those votes I do not think exist in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Congressman Conyers, if you weren’t holding your calculator, if you were just deciding whether impeachment was called for here, what would be the reasons you would list?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: What would be the reasons that I would what?

AMY GOODMAN: What would be the reasons you would list for impeachment, if you weren’t holding your calculator, just holding the Constitution?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: Oh, OK. Well, to me, we can accomplish probably as much as we would need to to make the record clear that there has been a great deal of violation of the sworn oath of office, abuses of power, through the hearings and inquiries that we can conduct. But it isn’t that -- and no one has ever heard me suggest that we don’t think that there is conduct that could be proven to be impeachable.

But when Ron Dellums and Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug and William Fitts Ryan of New York, when we -- Parren Mitchell -- when we introduced an impeachment resolution, the first one against a sitting president in over seventy-five years, when Richard Nixon was being investigated, it was at the beginning of his term. And although he had been overwhelmingly reelected, there was time for us to have the hearing. This -- the timing of an administration which will go down in history as probably one of the most disappointing, there isn’t the time here for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. And they didn't want to touch reagan either

look John, in ten years we will be back with another disaster, becasue folks like you don't want to do the people's business.

Thanks for the fish, and all the rest

As they say...

History will judge this generation harshly, and you will not escape that judgment either

[mike_c]

2. what she said....

Yep, that pretty much nails it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. I third this! Thanks for stating it so concisely! eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. and what if there were votes?

are you waiting for November 2008?

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. I'm not the one waiting

it is them once again refusing to do their constitutional duty, for the sake of elections

"to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against enemies, both foreign and domenstic," they took the oath

[OzarkDem]

123. GOP did Clinton's pretty quickly

Look Rep. Conyers, you don't have to finish it before the election, just get it started.

[Totally Committed]

3. WHat the hell ever happened to, "Because it's the right thing to do."??????????

???????????????????????????????

Well?


TC

[orleans]

136. EXACTLY!! n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

146. Reality. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

4. Put the calculator down and step away from it, Congressman Conyers

Now is NOT the time to be doing sums. Your country is in peril.

[Raksha]

57. True...step away from your calculator and do the right thing.

Then pick up your calculator again in a couple of months. I bet it will be telling you a very different story!

[mmonk]

6. the writers of the constitution didn't mention time.

I'm sure they had time pieces and an abacus.

[Duer 157099]

7. Somebody needs to ask Conyers this question:

Sir, if Patrick Fitzgerald had suspected that Bush would pardon/commute Libby, should he have stopped the investigation/prosecution, since it ended up just being a waste of taxpayer money?

Sir, how is that not an analogous situation?

[bbgrunt]

24. good question. exactly to the point.

[onenote]

26. not really. easy distinction

Because Fitz was able to get a conviction and the pardon/commutation doesn't change the fact that scooter was found guilty, even if he was spared punishment.

But if an attempt is made to pass articles of impeachment and it fails, then chimpy is exonerated.

Big difference.

[puebloknot]

77. Impeachment hearings would be *public*. A "failed" impeachment...

...would still get the facts out to an already restless and enraged public. Chimpy would never be exonerated in the court of public opinion. Wiggling out of accountability in an impeachment would be seen as just another example of the reckless disregard for the rule of law that has characterized this administration. And airing Bush's dirty laundry in an impeachment proceeding could help to set the right circumstances for legal action, domestically and internationally.

Fitz was able to get a conviction because he took the necessary legal steps to make that happen. If he had hedged his bets, and decided the odds were not good, so why bother, we'd have the same ethic you're speaking of here with regard to impeachment.

Impeachment is the only moral/letal/ethical thing to do.

[onenote]

82. again, the problem is that the first vote occurs before there are hearings

As has been pointed out several times, the first step in an impeachment process is not hearings, it is the adoption of a resolution by the full House authorizing and directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct those hearings. In the Nixon impeachment process, that resolution passed by a vote of 410-4 in Feb 1974. In the Clinton impeachment process, the resolution initiating the House judiciary hearings garnered the support of 31 Democrats along with all of teh repubs. If a vote was held now to initiate House hearings, it would lose -- that's COnyers point. And the process would be over before you ever had "public" hearings.

[puebloknot]

99. And if Conyers used his awesome voice and the information gleaned from...

the hearings he has already conducted on this issue, to try to promote impeachment, the votes *might* be there. Walking around with a finger in the wind (his calculator), and buckling to Pelosi's stated intent *not* to allow impeachment, is hardly the mark of the John Conyers I have known and respected....in the past. Mr. Conyers has become the master of the mixed message, to the disappointment of many of us who trusted him to keep his word on impeachment.

The Dems are cowering under the failed leadership of Pelosi and Conyers. Threats of losing committee assignments tend to work against standing up for what is right, by any standard ever devised by humankind.

The pablum we are being fed says the Democrats are simply helpless to do *anything* to oppose the steamroller that is the current administration. They're way behind the Democratic base, and are not immune to a loss they seem not able to even contemplate.

[onenote]

109. I wish that was true. But until the Blue Dogs are willing to support impeachment

I'm afraid its a losing proposition and I don't think John COnyers can convince them otherwise. These are the same Blue DOgs that largely supported the FISA bill.

As for your assertion that threats regarding Committee assignments are being used, I challenge you to offer any evidence to back that up, keeping in mind that you probably don't even know how committee assignments are made or what would be involved in changing them.

[puebloknot]

113. I have no evidence. I'm guilty of repeating a rumor that has been circulating...

...for a long time. But it's a rumor that has some cache, when weighed against the very changeable behavior of Mr. Conyers. We the People are advised to trust the greater wisdom of our "leaders," and to accept that secrecy is acceptable when doing the people's business.

"I'm afraid," and "I *don't* think" could use some footnotes, also. You are speculating. And while I'd need to brush the dust off of my Political Science 101 textbook to review exactly how commitee assignments are made or changed, I, like most good citizens, don't require anal details to know when my elected officials are not doing their jobs, and are behaving erratically in their communication with we citizens.

[onenote]

131. to provide the requested "footnotes"

As for my statements that "I'm afraid" that getting Blue Dogs to support impeachment without repubs stepping up to the plate is a losing proposition and that "I think" Conyers can't convince them otherwise, I refer you to my citation to the vote on the FISA bill. Conyers has described how efforts were made to convince the Blue DOgs to stick with the party on that vote but couldnt. My point is that if you can't get them to vote against FISA I don't think you're getting them to vote for impeachment any time soon.

As for the process by which committee assignments are made (and the reason why rumors that Pelosi is threatening Conyers with the loss of his Judiciary assisgment are complete crap): committee assignments actually are approved by a vote of the full Congress. Most of the time, this vote is a pro-forma, non-recorded vote that rubberstamps what the leadership and steering committees of each party have decided. However, every once in a while a controversy can and does erupt. For example, pelosi announced in January that she was going to put William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee. Repubs protested and threatened to force a recorded vote. Pelosi backed down and the spot on Homeland Security was left unfilled. So much for the all-powerful Pelosi. Anyone who knows anything about how Congress works knows that the chances that Pelosi could attempt to get the Democratic caucus to support her in stripping Conyers of his Judiciary seat are nada, zilch, zero, zip and all the other nifty ways to say not a snowball's chance in hell.

[AntiFascist]

115. What's not being said

How many times have we heard that the public is only aware of the tip of an iceburg, that if the public was fully aware of the extent of the corruption then impeachment would happen easily? Something is preventing Congress and those responsible for investigations from going to the next level. What is this exactly?

[puebloknot]

126. Exactly what this is scares me. Evil cabal? Threats on their lives?

And then I ask myself if the same elements are what caused the Iran/Contra gang to skate.

The other possibility is that, to our great horror, the level of Dem complicity is so great that they're "protecting us" from what is considered "on a need to know only" basis.

[orleans]

137. blackmail? as randi says they must have pictures of dems in bed

with either dead women or live boys

[creeksneakers2]

122. I thought Fitz had a pretty good perjury case against Rove

But he decided not to proceed with it.

[puebloknot]

128. And the elephant in the room is WHY????? nt

[krispos42]

8. And a decade ago the Republicans had only the Constitution

So, who is a better defender of the Constitution, then, Conyers?

Stop being a tool! Start using the tools!

[Yukari Yakumo]

142. And look how well *that* went. {nt}

uguu

[krispos42]

143. Their devestating election losses in 2000? :-)

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Seventeen months

Seventeen months is still plenty of time for these criminals to start another disastrous war for bogus reasons and suppress civil liberties.

Impeach, remove and stop the bleeding now.

[On the Road]

10. How Would Impeachment Proceeding Stop a War on Iran?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Maybe because Cheney would start thinking more about covering

his ass than about trumping up a war?

[CGowen]

48. Maybe they would joke around like they did under Nixon

This exchange between White House chief of staff Alexander Haig and Kissinger reveals Nixon jokingly threatening to drop a nuclear bomb on Congress as it moves to impeach him in March 1974:

Haig: "I was told to get the football."
Kissinger: "What do you mean?"
Haig: "His black nuclear bag ... He is going to drop it on the Hill."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5079259/site/newsweek/

[rudy23]

52. Wouldn't be surprised to hear these "jokes" come back into fashion

around those parts.

[rudy23]

53. How does Conyers know how the vote will go before the hearings start?

What if something came out in those hearings that was so shocking, no one could afford to NOT vote for impeachment?

[2rth2pwr]

145. Good question- nt

[Jack Rabbit]

101. My good sir:

As somebody said up there, Cheney will be too busy covering his ass to start a war in Iran in impeaching hearing begin. It won't help his cause that what will be investigated (among other things) is the way he manipulated intelligence about Iraq. After that, in order for the junta to lead us into war, Ahmadinejad had better have a nuclear warhead out on display, because no one will take Dick Cheney's word for it.

Of course, if the process is successful, there will be no war with Iran at least for a few years because cooler heads will be in control of the executive branch.

Will the impeachment drive be successful? I don't know. However, I will give you my definition of courage: Courage is fighting those battles that must be fought, without any guarantees of the outcome. It is time for all of us to show some courage, especially our representatives in Congress, rather than running form the battle that must be fought.

[AntiFascist]

116. It would expose some of the Bush Administrations' machinations

the war profiteering, the illegal manipulation of intelligence, the influence of the Oil lobbyists, perhaps the foreign influence and corruption involved with that. Bush will lose all credibility as "the War President" and Congress should then easily be able to clamp down on the war plans.

[lonestarnot]

11. Or money either after we launch the war with Iran.

[slipslidingaway]

12. "Stopping the Repukes" How has the long term strategy worked?

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation...

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly...

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda."

And George W. was in the position to appoint 2 Supreme Court judges!


Already posted this in the other thread, just repeating here K&R.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1681441

[stimbox]

13. Cowards!

Fuckin' spineless cowards.
:mad:
:argh:
:grr:
:nuke:
How the fuck do these people sleep at night?

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Very well thank you

that is why many of us have concluded we have team A and team B, but both are corporatist and are happy with their beanies and screw the Constitution and the people

[stimbox]

17. I agree.

The corporate party has 2 wings.

[Exiled in America]

23. I wonder if the authors of the Dec. of Independence had a calculator in hand...

...and calculated the risks before sending a letter to their Political leaders telling them to go fuck themselves.

...or did they do what they did because they were COURAGEOUS and because they believed it was the RIGHT THING TO DO?

I wish had more leaders representative of our history of courage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Self edit

[Perry Logan]

22. To say they're cowards implies there is something to be afraid of.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the Democrats would be afraid of. Do the Republicans in Congress go around beating people up or something? Are they packed?

Of course not. Republicans are not bad-asses, so confronting them on impeachment cannot possibly strike fear into the Democrats. You badmouthing--charming though it is--makes no sense whatsoever.

Your strange belief that the Democrats have something to fear in Republicans suggests that you, not they, are afraid of Republicans. Only someone morbidly afraid of Republicans would think the Democrats would have anything to fear from them, whether they impeach Bush or not.

I'm sorry for your problem. But you shouldn't use your hang-ups to bash other people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Anthrax. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. One Word: Anthrax

two targets

BOTH in the democratic leadership

YOU connect dots

Been told that there are reasons to be afraid

I've told my interlocutor that it is time to challenge the bully...

Alas, you can try to connect dots

I have... it ain't pretty

[Raster]

50. Fear--purely conjecture of course--of jets slamming into another building.

Fear of an American city laid to waste by a dirty bomb. Fear of another "special delivery" of gen-you-ine, biological weapons grade, United States Military anthrax. Fear of ever climbing into a small plane again. Fear of harm or injury to one's self, or worse, a loved one. Fear of a terrible secret leaked to the press. Fear of financial ruin. And the list just goes on and on. Purely conjecture, of course.

Wake up America!:kick:

[puebloknot]

114. I heard Kucinich say, right after the anthrax attacks...

...that "Fear is palpable in the halls of Congress."

[Raster]

130. I'm sure the untimely and suspicious death of the great Paul Wellstone

struck terror in quite a few hearts and minds, and probably still does today.

[puebloknot]

144. Absolutely. I never thought it was an accident. It was too convenient.

[Raster]

149. When dealing with bush*/cheney* and their minions, and most importantly, their masters,

NEVER assume coincidence or happen-chance. NEVER! Wellstone was the preeminent voice of the people. Every nefarious action taken by the bush*/cheney* cabal would have been questioned LOUDLY by Wellstone. And even more important--and probably what got him killed--was his public persona. He wasn't just an anonymous Senator. He had clout. If Wellstone would have stood up and said something was rotten in DC, people would have listened. Yeah, his death was convenient all right, just like 9/11 was convenient and coincidental. And a host of other convenient coincidences that helped these bastards seize and hold power.

Wake up America!:kick:

[puebloknot]

157. And now we are wondering what and when the next "coincidence" is going to be. nt

[stimbox]

27. Why doesn't he tell the truth?

I would respect him more if he said the DLC won't let us.

[Individualist]

41. None of them will ever admit that

DLC and their complicity is exactly the reason impeachment is "off the table".

[Gregorian]

14. Is there a reason hearings cannot last beyond the election?

And people are predicting conviction votes? That's bullshit. Probably the truth, but still it's bs. We don't know how everyone will vote. Not unless they're all willing to violate the Constitution without any doubt.

[porphyrian]

69. No, and that's why the time argument is such bullshit.

They're talking about impeaching after the election anyway! It can be done whenever the hell they do it. We are being lied to by the people we are supposed to be able to trust.

[pacalo]

16. "Are you concerned that lack of impeachment will serve as a welcome mat

for other Nixonian/Bushonian presidencies? After all, we're talking about the most dangerous, most inept, & most hated president in modern history."

Why couldn't she ask him that question? I'd love to hear his answer.

[understandinglife]

18. Nothing in that Constitution, Rep Conyers, prevents "post-presidential ..."

... impeachment. Same for "post-vice presidential" impeachment.

Among the important aspects of pursuing impeachment is preventing Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonezo, and the others that should be impeached from ever holding future federal office.

And, you can bring them 'before the bar' in the House, immediately, by filing INHERENT CONTEMPT
charges against each of them, as can any ONE of your colleagues in the Senate, and try their sorry assess for all the lies they've told in both Chambers as well as, and even more importantly for, ALL THE CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED.

Stop calculating, Rep Conyers, and start prosecuting.

You are sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States of America, not to do arithmetic.

Thank you,
Bob

[creeksneakers2]

127. I'm not sure you can impeach somebody who is out of office

I've heard theories that its possible. I don't see any way Congress could use impeachment for anything more than to remove somebody from office. Anything else would be usurping judicial power and would probably be struck down by the courts.

I don't know what the impeachment situation is for holding future office but Alcee Hastings was impeached when he was a judge and he's now a member of Congress.

Inherent contempt is limited only to crimes where a house of Congress is a party. The offense must be something that disrupted Congress while it was carrying out one of its duties under the constitution. Something like illegal wiretapping couldn't be pursued with inherent contempt.

[KoKo]

19. He says further on in transcript....that it's all about the election.

They don't have the votes...election, election, election.

Very sad. I have no way of knowing what he's facing. But, it's very sad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. That was the calculus for the 1988 election

and why they didn't touch reagan over iran-contra

We all know that Dukakis was sworn in as the President right?

They are making the same mistake

You'd think they'd learn

[stimbox]

46. Triangulation.

The hypotenuse of an impeachment is zero.

[KoKo]

47. It was calculation for giving in on Election 2000 (don't want to anger people) and the '02 Midterms

and the '04 Selection where Kerry pussyfooted around and congress didn't want to anger people and in '06 we managed to break through because people were so angry...and now it's "we don't have the votes" we don't want to anger the red states and have them throw out the Blue Dogs.

I just can't accept that reasoning from Pelosi or Reid. There's more to it than that. "Complicity" with the system is the word that comes to mind.

[Zodiak]

33. Not only sad, but the Democrats are shedding supporters

like a cheap suit because of this mighty "election" strategy ofcapitulating and doing nothing.

So it is stupid because it is not the right thing to do, and it is stupid because it shrinks their support instead of expands it.

In fact, I cannot think of one good reason why they would not pursue this if they were not complicit. If they are complicit, then it is the right strategy to make sure that Bushco's plans go forward.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Well I will be honest

as more and more of this emerges, and they do nothing... I will have a hell of a problem pulling the lever for a democrat, as well as a Republican

Ok some individuals no problem, (Kucinich) but the party... oh boy

And I don't want speeches about how much better these guys are for us... if they don't stand for justice they can kiss my vote good bye

[snappyturtle]

20. K&R I think he's making a mountain out of a mole hill.....I don't think

an impeachment would take THAT long (just pick one issue)....and to not even try....disgraceful.

[porphyrian]

32. Sad. I wanted to like him more.

I guess old age makes you scared.

[porphyrian]

44. Hey, I've got a calculator, too!

Let's see...3732 = number of Americans dead for a lie in Iraq, 74 of which are just this month alone. That's a little over 2 Americans a day on average who will die while Congress does nothing to stop this administration, assuming the numbers don't increase. How acceptable does your calculator say this is, Congressman?

[truedelphi]

34. Isn't he overlooking the fact that Jeff Sessions (R)

and Arlen Specter(R) both lambasted Gonzo as strongly as any Dems did??

Does he really think that NO Republicans love their country??

[bdamomma]

35. will starting another war, or illegal invasion of another country

put impeachment on the table? Rep. Conyers.

[endarkenment]

36. I guess the OJ trial was a big mistake.

After all the votes just weren't there.

It seems to me that you don't go count the votes before you make your case and then decide to not make your case, you decide instead if your case is worthy of being made.

[onenote]

42. except that isn't how impeachment works

The first step in an impeachment proceeding is the adoption of a resolution by the full house authorizing and directing the House Judiciary COmmittee to conduct hearings/inquiry and consider articles of impeachment. As Conyers notes, it is unlikely that such a resolution would pass today. So you never get to the trial. You lose before you get a chance to make your case.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Of course it would lose today, because Conyers et al have been

actively dismissing the possibility, rather than marshalling their forces to back impeachment.

If Pelosi and Conyers were to say they favored it, most the Dems and not a few Republicans would back it - they just need the cover of being in the majority.

[onenote]

67. right, because repubs always follow Pelosi and Conyers' leads

You can't be serious. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see impeachment happen and I've written my repub rep and told him so. But I live in the real world and in the real world, the only way impeachment is going to happen is from the bottom up -- its going to take public pressure on members of Congress, particularly repub members. If a few repubs were to come out for starting an impeachment inquiry, then I think its likely that the Blue Dogs who are unlikely to support a purely partisan impeachment effort would join in and the process could start. A lot can be learned from history. The two most recent impeachment efforts both were commenced with bipartisan support. Overwhelming bipartisan support in the case of the Nixon impeachment (the vote to start the House Judiciary inquiry was 410-4) and a modicum of bipartisan support in the Clinton impeachment (the vote to start the House Judiciary inquiry was supported by 31 Democrats).

[endarkenment]

65. Ah so a DA should never take a case to a GJ if he might not get the votes?

He should in fact count the votes before he makes his case, as after all, he might not get an indictment?

[onenote]

68. inapt analogy

First, Grand Jury proceedings are secret. Second, before you even get to the point where the House, acting as a "Grand Jury," decides whether or not to approve articles of impeachment, the full House has to vote to authorize the House Judiciary COmmittee to conduct an inquiry and report back. That is the vote that Conyers, correctly I believe, has concluded will not pass at this time. Carrying your analogy along, DAs make decisions about what cases to pursue all the time.

[endarkenment]

79. Secret has nothing to do with it.

DAs do make such decisions, however, like Conyers in this case, if they make the decision not on the merits of the case but on the likelihood of their success in pursuing the case, they are making the wrong decision, especially when the matter at hand is as serious as this case is.

The analogy is inexact not inapplicable. Impeachment is an indictment, and bringing the case for indictment out into the light of day, win or lose, would advance the cause of truth, something that is sorely lacking with respect to the Bush administration and its conduct over the last seven years.

[onenote]

84. again -- you wont' bring the case "into the light of day"

because the vote to authorize the hearings will fail. Also, according to the standards established by the American Bar Association for prosecutors, a prosecutor is not obliged to present all charges which the evidence might support. The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction.

I would argue that deferring action until such time as there is a reasonable possiblity that you could actually get authroization from Congress to commence impeachment hearings rather than prematurely seeking such authorization is "consistent with the public interest" since it keeps alive the possibility of conducting hearings, etc. independent of an impeachment process.

[orleans]

139. that's what our district attorney does. a father had been repeatedly

sexually abusing his THREE children over a period of YEARS and joe birkett--the fucking republican state's attorney wouldn't prosecute because his ego can't run the risk of losing a case. apparently they need a dead body before it's a go. and besides, incest? no, no, no. that certainly doesn't happen in MY county.

(sorry--venting i guess. and of course it's infuriating. back on topic: conyers should DO THE RIGHT THING)

[H2O Man]

38. I like Conyers.

But he is wrong on this. Very wrong.

[TahitiNut]

49. Ditto

[lazyriver]

55. That's exactly how I feel about it.

I also think the reasons he gave were far less than the whole story.

[puebloknot]

110. I like him, too...always have. So I'm very puzzled by his behavior of late.

He seems to have done an about face. He's inconsistent when he speaks to groups about his intentions. Is he being threatened? Has he had a stroke?

It's very distressing when one of the good guys seems to have lost his way.

[leftchick]

39. wow! he can spin himself silly as much as he wants but

The facts are , it is his SWORN DUTY to uphold the constitution and FUCK the politics! MFer!

:grr:

[bvar22]

40. The Democrats will LOSE votes by NOT impeaching.

Someone got to Conyers....maybe showed him a picture of Wellstone or something.

There ARE Democrats who would like to inherit a "Unitary Executive". The DLC helped build it, and the DLC candidate is leading in the polls.

[ejbr]

43. Presumably, Nancy "turncoat" Pelosi is threatening Conyers

by saying she will replace him from this committee if he initiates impeachment hearings. It is sad to think that he will have to give up his post in order to save our country, but he must know that if it comes to that, then he MUST LOSE THIS POST!

[onenote]

51. Nope.

How come the members of Congress that have signed on to the impeachment resolution haven't been stripped of committee and/or subcommittee chairmanships? Do you even know the process by which committee chairs are named?

And as Conyers points out, the reason he isn't pushing impeachment is because he can count votes and he recognizes that an attempt to start an impeachment proceeding -- the first step being to get the entire House to pass a resolution authorizing the Judiciary COmmittee to hold hearings/inquiry on possible articles of impeachment -- is certain to fail at this point in time.

[ejbr]

58. Then he's an asshole too. Who cares if it fails?

Will future generations who are being tortured, jailed without habeas corpus, eavesdropped on without a warrant and subjected to an executive branch who hides everything from public scrutiny really care if Congress had enough votes to avoid their misery? It will not matter to them whether Conyers thought impeachment was a good idea, but did not act because of votes. The fact that there was no attempt to save them from these travesties will only lump him into the same boat as Bush & Co.

Of course, we can be complacent about the consequences of inaction by those who swore to uphold the constitution because the series of treasonous activities are only beginning. Without even an attempt to curb these practices, Conyers, Pelosi, et. al are giving license to future presidents to bring these outrages to the next level. If these future presidents see that there was no one who took the consitution seriously enough to take action to protect it, then they will certainly be tempted to see if they can break the law without consequence.

I am saddened to see people such as Conyers and Pelosi think that the Constitution should take backseat to votes, public perception, time constraints or their status. I cannot respect them, nor could I vote for them, without an attempt to save the idea of America, what it stands for and what countless patriots have died for. No, I do not know how chairmanships work, but I do know a self-serving asshole when I see one.

[LittleClarkie]

66. What do you mean who cares if it fails?

If they're going to do it they'd damned well better make sure it works, or what's the damn point? The war still goes on if it fails. We look like a bunch of morons if it fails. Everyone should care if it fails.

If they're going to do it, it HAS to succeed, or they shouldn't do it at all.

[ejbr]

76. I disagree

The purpose of attempting to impeach, whether it "works" or not, is to dissuade future presidents from attempting to follow in Bush's footsteps, knowing that there will be consequences, however minimal, to breaking the law. Whether it "works" or not is hardly the issue. The issue is to do what we can to protect future generations. Whether it "works" or not is of no importance when compared to the "damn piece of paper" that any attempt at impeaching is trying to protect.

To avoid doing what is right, even what is critical, to sustain the idea of America because there are not enough votes is reprehensible. Ergo, Pelosi and Conyers are assholes and just as culpable as the perpertrators. To say that it "has to succeed" or don't try it seems profoundly cynical and even demeaning to what people have fought and died for. Granted, if it were said because of a life or death situation, then I would accept this statement at face value. However, to avoid a failure of an impeachment attempt is self-serving under these circumstances and a national disgrace as well. Sorry, but that's how I sees it and no political calculations or considerations will change my mind.

[creeksneakers2]

129. I don't see a failed impeachment as a deterrent

A failed impeachment effort against Bush would would be the second failed impeachment attempt in a row. Future presidents would be likely to conclude from those two examples that impeachment isn't a great threat.

Different people have different world views and many value the symbolic over the physical. Such is the way a right winger worships the flag and is less concerned with what the flag actually stands for. So they want flag burners locked up even though our flag stands for free speech.

When you speak about doing the right thing you speak about making a symbolic statement. The symbolic statement doesn't change anything real. Many here on DU often ask for Democrats to take heroic stands on issue after issue. That would be symbolic, but what would the real world consequences be? The real consequences would be that there would be no more Democrats at all. What would be accomplished? I'm all for courage and heroic stands but the number of possible times to act is limited. Its best to pick the chances that have potential to really improve America.

[ejbr]

153. Then we should agree to disagree

I am in line with prominent progressive and conservative political analysts who believe that an impeachment proceeding is necessary in order to not only demonstrate that indeed we are a country governed by the rule of law, but also as a deterrent to future administrations. This impeachment attempt might not work, but what president would want their legacy to be tainted with an attempt of impeachment? A future president can see that impeachment did not work for Bush, but they would still have to wonder if it might work against them. To not attempt impeachment at all is a far louder cue to future presidents to do as they wish, than a failed impeachment. If this attempt at impeachment is a probable deterrant to unacceptable behavior then it is far from symbolic, but necessary. So when you attribute my intentions like this:

When you speak about doing the right thing you speak about making a symbolic statement.

I have to respectfully disagree with what you think I am "speaking" about. There is nothing "symbolic" about preventing future tyrants.

As I sm sure you stand by your perspective, I still stand by my previous comments. Without impeachment proceedings, I believe Conyers and Pelosi are just are traitorous as Rove, Cheney, Bush and Gonzales. To consider the short-term effects in "improving America" versus the long-term strategy of maintaining our structure as a country appears to me as misplaced priorities. To limit concern for only the next election versus the sustenance of American democracy seems, to me, to be cynically myopic. To consider the number of votes you have versus upholding your oath to office is treason.

Cheers

[warren pease]

78. Gotta love that logic...

... by which nobody would ever be prosecuted for a crime unless the ADA knew in advance somehow that the jury would return a guilty verdict. No business would ever launch a new product because success wasn't 100 percent guaranteed. My wife and I would never go downtown for dinner and a movie because some small percentage of Americans never make it home from such excursions. And so on...

It's entirely possible that a recitation of the articles of impeachment -- which, mind you, the vast majority of American who live off of mass media has never seen or heard -- would precipitate enough calls and emails to penetrate the dense skulls of the "off the table" crowd in congress.

It's possible that subsequent revelations of massive corruption, unconstitutional behavior, wars based on lies, assumption of dictatorial powers -- which, as above, the vast majority has never seen or heard of from mass media sources -- would generate another round of highly pissed off emails and calls telling these complacent slugs that they're risking a landslide defeat unless they vote for impeachment.

All these things are quite possible, and certainly more probable than my being murdered on my way home from a movie. So why not just fucking go for it? I mean, the only thing we have to lose by screwing around is the Constitutional republic.

wp

[LittleClarkie]

86. We're not talking criminals and lawyers and juries

The Congress is not usually involved in your average criminal case.

Your average criminal can't start a war.

Lawyers don't get elected.

Apples and Oranges.

But even if we were to use your analogy, I reckon many DA's don't prosecute cases they don't think they can win.

The point used to be to stop the war. Then many people accepted the idea that impeachment was the only way to stop the insanity. But now I'm presented with a different goal.

It doesn't matter if we succeed. It doesn't matter if we stop the war. A mere deterrent to future presidents will be good enough.

Frankly I don't think it would act as a deterrent so much as an incentive for the other side to try and impeach our next Dem president. Nixon, then Clinton in retaliation for Nixon, then Bush, then who? When does the tit for tat game stop?

[warren pease]

119. Maybe not perfect analogies, but here's the thing...

There are at least four really good reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney right now:

1 Simple justice says they must be held accountable for their crimes, and punished to the full extent of the law. If this administration isn't impeachable, what else would they have to do to qualify? Butcher and eat babies on national television? Rape and murder college women on a different campus every week, with full video coverage?

2 Their totalitarian agenda must be exposed so that the American people understand the magnitude of their unprecedented criminality. The closet brownshirts will support BushCo to the end, but the non-insane among us would almost certainly react with disgust and outrage.

3 Somebody has to put a stop to their murderous agenda before they can nuke Iran or shed any more blood in Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress shows no sigh of curtailing funding, so the remaining option is to get rid of the bastards who demanded the money in the first place.

4 They must serve as an example of what will happen to the next right wing cabal if it tries to replace representative democracy with fascism. If they get a pass on the sheer volume of offenses against sanity and the Constitution, what kind of signal does that send to the future fascists of america club?

And then there’s impeachment as the last means of self-defense. It’s getting a bit urgent, and all the pieces are in place to install a pure fascist dictatorship. They're just waiting for an excuse, and they're certainly not above manufacturing their own.

The "tit-for-tat" impeachment game becomes less of a problem the fewer republicans there are in congress. I suggest that highly public impeachment proceedings with saturation coverage would be the first glimpse that most people get into the malevolent lawlessness of this administration. I mean, how else would the 92 percent who say TV news is their sole or primary source of information have discovered any of the high crimes BushCo is guilty of? So shine the spotlight on these roaches, cut off their ability to scurry for cover and let people actually hear the evidence and the lies.

Then, if people aren't quite as brain dead as they often seem, there will be such a groundswell of revulsion that the GOP will be discredited for decades with all but the religious nuts who comprise the last 25 or so percent who continue to support these maniacs.

If the votes aren't there to convict now, maybe a public airing will jam the capitol phone lines in such massive volume that senators will understand that a "nay" vote on the charges may just result in their having to work for a living for once in their privileged, sheltered lives.

And if all of the above fails, then we don't really deserve to live in a Constitutional republic, since we can't be trusted to guard it against enemies foreign and domestic. In which case, fuck it; I'm off to a civilized country to spend the rest of my life without worrying about the gestapo kicking in my door at 4:00 in the morning.



wp

[puebloknot]

107. Spot on! Gen. Eisenhower would never have launched the D-Day Invasion...

...under these parameters.

Can't you just hear Paul Revere shouting, as he rode through the countryside, "The British might be coming; The British might be coming"!

"And nothing is but what is *not*"!

I have respected John Conyers, but I am beginning to wonder if the man, given his age, is up to the task at hand now. And, while I'm on this rant: It has been suggested to me, in a phone call with a Dem who heads up the impeachment effort with a well-known Dem grassroots organization, that "there is that little ethics violation on Conyers record that we have to consider." Details escape me, but he was involved in paying a babysitter for his grandchildren out of campaign funds, or some such *very serious* ethics faux pas.

I have no idea whether that is just the musing of some self-important political staffer or not, but her counsel was that we must go slow on impeachment and there must be no bashing of our elected representatives. "We attract more bees with honey than with vinegar"! Except that the bees can't take it any more, and are leaving.

Some days I just can't fu*king believe that I'm awake and alive in this bizarre scenario.

[Junkdrawer]

45. Conyers promises to Impeach Bush in 2009*, if Democrats pick up 50 seats!

(Offer not good if Bush is not in power at that time. Other restrictions apply.)

[Raster]

54. And the calculator is just BULLSHIT. I have great respect for Mr. Conyers.

I believe he is truly one of the good guys. HOWEVER, the impeachment of Darth Cheney could be fastracked. Seventeen months is MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to bring proceedings to bear. Once the American people get a chance to FAIRLY appraise the situation and evaluate the evidence, they will be demanding in the harshest terms to impeach the evil bastard. Every vote, both in the House and Senate, would be a matter of historic and public record. I guarantee ANYONE NOT VOTING TO IMPEACH will never hold public office again and will go down in history as an accomplice and collaborator to the most evil, illegal regime in our country's history. This would virtually guarantee the rethuglican party WILL NEVER AGAIN BE A VIABLE FORCE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!

Put down the calculator. Pick up the gavel. Time is truly a'wasting!

Wake up America!:kick:

[onenote]

62. now that's hilarious

You really believe that anyone not voting to impeach will never hold office again? Really? WHen you choose to visit the real world, give us a call.

[Raster]

100. Yes, and when you choose to hit anything but your "one note," please give us a call.

Bulletin: In the real world, more than just Democrats are sick and tired of bush* and cheney*. I personally know Republicans who are calling for their impeachment. This country is divided in many ways, but is RAPIDLY COMING TOGETHER on the bush* and cheney* impeachment question. Let the proceedings begin. Let's see how far blind loyalty to party truly goes. This isn't some partisan lynching as with the Clinton proceedings. This is a worthwhile endeavor, gaining in support every day.

Wake up America!:kick:

[onenote]

108. I'll say it again. You can't get the proceedings to start without the full House approving

and despite all the repubs you claim to know who are demanding impeachment, not a single repub member of Congress has indicated any support for moving forward. I'm sure that John Boehner is going to be defeated for his lack of enthusiasm for impeachment. Not.

Gee, all of two repubs voted for an Iraq troop withdrawal timetable, but large numbers of them really support impeachment.

Sorry, not in the world I live in.

[GeorgeGist]

56. Chickenshit

[rateyes]

59. Excuses, excuses...

always excuses. What the hell do calculators have to do with upholding YOUR OWN OATH OF OFFICE?

[onenote]

63. why is it an excuse not to call for a vote that will lose

and thereby create the impression that chimpy has been exonerated?

[rateyes]

70. He said that the investigations would bring out

more than enough evidence to charge impeachable offenses. His oath requires him to uphold the constitution. He can't do that, and at the same time allow the executive to be above the law. So, he has to find an excuse for not wanting to impeach. He doesn't want to impeach, that's why he doesn't start the process. Period.

[onenote]

71. You don't get to the hearings until after the full House authorizes them

And its that vote that will fail. Its not up to Conyers, Pelosi or any other individual to "start the process". It takes a majority of the House and until there is some indication of bi-partisan support to take that step (as there was in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments), it isn't going to happen.

[rateyes]

87. He's CHAIR of the Judiciary committee...

he can investigate potential crimes...he's been doing that with the Attorney's firings, etc.

John Conyers has more power than you seem to think. He doesn't want to impeach Bush. He never has wanted to impeach Bush. He wants to keep that loser around so that the Dems can run against him in '08. The problem is, in the meantime, we keep losing our civil liberties and move more toward the unitary executive.

Conyers does not want to impeach...else he would co-sponsor Dennis Kucinich's resolution. He hasn't done that. And, he won't.

[onenote]

92. yes he is and he should be holding hearings. just not impeachment hearings

I thought that's what we were talking about --starting a formal impeachment process. He can't do that without full House authorization. (Or to put it another way, Peter Rodino was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and a supporter of impeachment. But he didn't start impeachment hearings until after he was authorized to do so by a vote of the full House).

[rateyes]

94. In the Clinton impeachment hearings the Judiciary Committee

started the process of impeachment. Sept. 24 of that year the Judiciary Committee announced that it would meet to consider ASKING THE HOUSE for the authority to conduct impeachment hearings. (CONYERS HAS NOT DONE THAT.) The House obliged.

3 months later, in December, the house approved articles of impeachment.

THREE MONTHS. So, your argument that Conyers can't get the ball rolling is not the case. And, Conyers statement that there isn't enough time is not the case, either.

[onenote]

105. Conyers could get the Committee to report a resolution to the full House, where it would lose

That's Conyers point -- its not that he can't try to get the ball rolling, its that the ball will stop almost immediately.

In the Clinton situation, by the way, the first relevant vote actually occurred on September 11 1998 when the full House approved, by a bipartisan vote of 363-63, a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to receive and review the Starr report. THat vote set the stage for the House JUdiciary Committee chair Hyde to announce, on the 24th, that the Committee would meet to consider asking the House for authority to conduct a full inquiry. Hyde got his resolution as planned on Oct 5 on a party line vote (21-16), leading to the full House vote on OCtober 8, which was approved 258=176, with 31 Democrats voting in support. The hearings themselves then took place in November and December and articles of impeachment were approved by the Committee on December 11 and 12. The full House debated the Articles and approved two of them on December 19. And the Senate trial took place from Jan 7 until Feb 12, when Clinton was acquitted.

While you are right that it was only three months from the time the House judiciary began considering the matter to the approval of the articles of impeachment by the full House, you also need to keep in mind that "case" against Clinton was based on the Starr report, which reflected nine months of investigations and interviews.

Conyers and the House Democrats should be conducting more oversight and investigative hearings, not under the imprimatur of an impeachment investigation, but as an exercise of their investigatory powers. I recognize that the WH will stonewall them by resisting subpoenas, and I think that the House should be pressing harder on that issue as well.

[rateyes]

98. So, when is he going to hold hearings on the lies

that got us into this war? When is he going to bring inherent contempt charges against Rove and Miers? When is he even going to say I AM FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE VP AND THE POTUS? When is he PERSONALLY going to co-sponsor H.R. 333?

When?

[onenote]

106. He should be holding more hearings. ANd the contempt issue should be pushed

As for co-sponsoring HR 333? I don't see him doing that until he's ready to push the matter forward -- in other words, when he thinks that it will be able to actually pass.

[Individualist]

75. The "not enough votes" excuse is an attempt to cover-up complicity.

[rateyes]

89. I wish instead of counting votes in Congress...

he'd start counting the votes of the people. 3 out of 4 Americans HATE Bush.

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. I prefer they have The Constitution in one hand and JUSTICE in the other.

They all took an oath of office to defend the CONSTITUTION. NOT their elections.

[onenote]

64. and there are many ways of defending the constitution

One could argue that not pursuing an impeachment resolution that will fail, thereby creating the impression that chimpy has "won" exoneration also is protecting the constitution.

[rateyes]

88. And, one would be wrong in that argument. nt

[onenote]

91. Yes, oh supreme decider of everything.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[rateyes]

93. You're welcome.

We all are entitled to our opinions.

[cui bono]

72. How can we possibly not have a simple majority in the House?

There's 232 Dems and 202 Republicans.

Let alone the fact that everyone of them, in both parties, should be for it since they swore to uphold the constitution.

Pathetic.

[onenote]

73. Because there are a lot of Democrats from red=leaning districts

where pro-impeachment sentiment probably is pretty low. None of these members (and indeed, virtually none of the members from blue districts) ran on a campaign that made impeachment an issue and that was less than a year ago. Members from these districts might support impeachment, but only if their constituents demand it and only if some repubs also come out in favor. Both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments started with some bi-partisan support in COngress and until that develops, there simply won't be enough support for starting the process.

[cui bono]

81. My question is more of... how sad is it that this doesn't have bi-partisan support?

Politics has been turned into such a team sport lately.

There should not be one single person against impeachment. The evidence is clear and has already been admitted to in the public record.

[onenote]

85. I agree with you. But I can't change reality

[porphyrian]

124. If you believe that, your life is sad indeed.

Everything you do changes reality. So does everything you don't do.

[onenote]

132. Very philosophical. Irrelevant to what we were discussing, but philosohpical

You said "There should not be one single person against impeachment. The evidence is clear and has already been admitted to in the public record."

I said I agreed, but that I can't change the reality -- which is that there are people against impeachment. I can and do try to change it - I've contacted my repub rep and urged him to support impeachment. But the reality right now is that despite my efforts and those of likeminded people, there are still people who are against impeachment. Hopefully it will change, but acting like it already has and demanding a vote that then loses doesn't strike me as the best way to accomplish that result.

[porphyrian]

140. Predictable, boring and wrong.

I didn't say that at all, cui bono did. I was simply pointing out how wrong you were, and continue to be, in believing you can't change reality. Until you have a better grasp on reality, perhaps you should stop pretending to be an authority on it.

[onenote]

141. predictable boring and wrong

right back at ya!

[porphyrian]

148. One note indeed. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day. - n/t

[onenote]

150. Box score: Onenote 2, Porphyian 0

[porphyrian]

151. Whatever you need to believe. - n/t

[rateyes]

96. There would be bi-partisan support of it if

Conyers held open hearings and aired the dirty laundry. He can call a meeting of the Judiciary Committee and start the process of investigating the crimes with the purpose of taking a vote to ASK the House for authority to hold impeachment hearings.

Conyers won't do that. He doesn't WANT to impeach Bush.

When he counts up the number of votes he has of those who WANT impeachment, he does NOT count himself in that number. He's on the "don't impeach" list. And, all the talk of "calculators" is just a smoke screen he is using for political cover, IMO.

[Gregorian]

74. How can we know the votes if we don't even know the charges?

Of course we know they won't be acceptable to republicans. Not yet. But especially in an election year, we might actually have some accountability. Force them in public. Ah, fuck. I'm just typing for nothing...

We don't even know the charges. Until then we certainly don't know the votes.

This is maddening. Somewhere I read Pelosi has Conyers on a leash. She claims to pull him from the Judiciary Committee if he instigates impeachment. We need to know about that.

[onenote]

90. the idea that Pelosi has "Conyers on a leash" is such bull

There isn't a scintilla of evidence to support that nor is there any evidence to suggest that Pelosi would or even could "pull" Conyers from his Judiciary Committee chairmanship. (Query: why hasn't she pulled Kucinich from his chairmanship for introducing the cheney impeachment resolution, or taken steps against any of the Democrats signing on to that resolution). Also, apparently you are unaware of the process by which committee assignments are made. They actually are voted on by the entire House. The assignment votes are pro forma and typically not recorded, although every once in awhile there is a controversy that threatens to force a recorded vote (William Jefferson's committee assignment, for example). Do you think the rest of the House Democrats will support Pelosi in stripping Conyers from his seat if he publicly calls for there to be a vote on authorizing his committee to conduct an impeachment hearing (a vote that Conyers himself acknowledges would not pass).

Silly silly theory.

[Gregorian]

112. It's not a theory. Here's the link and quote.

I miraculously found it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=303005


The prospect of an impeachment inquiry by the House judiciary committee would concentrate the minds of the president and vice president wonderfully on obeying rather than sabotaging the Constitution. But Speaker Pelosi has at least figuratively joined hands with the White House in opposition. Emulating the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, she has threatened the removal of Michigan Rep. John Conyers from his chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if an impeachment inquiry were even opened, according to reliable congressional chatter.

[onenote]

118. I'm sorry, but Bruce Fein saying it doesn't make it so, or even possible.

I know Bruce from his days at the FCC and he's an interesting guy, but you learned quickly to filter out his hyperbole.

Bruce is knowledgable on a lot of things, but apparently not on the process by which committee assignments are made and changed. They require a vote of the full House. Now, most of the time, its a pro-forma non-recorded vote that rubber stamps what the leadership wants. But every once in awhile, a controversy erupts, such as the one invovling whether William Jefferson should've been named to the Homeland Security Committee. As you may recall, despite the fact that Pelosi originally said she was going to give Jefferson a spot on the Committee, it never actually happened because the repubs were going to force a recorded vote on it. SO much for the all-powerful Pelosi.

The notion that Pelosi can get the Democratic caucus to vote to strip Conyers of his committee chairmanship is one of the least informed things I've seen in a long time. Even for Fein, its really stupid.

[Gregorian]

120. That is a big relief. Thank you.

I did not see any reaction to it on this forum. Well, except for me. Haha.

So then Conyers is, for lack of a better expression, playing a game with impeachment. At least he has control to move with it. As for votes, I don't know anything about the Judiciary Committee.

With this talk about Iran, we've really got to move. Bush is a menace to the planet.

[Generator]

80. I just realized the conspiracy

oh YES-it's all about 2008. Have you ever before seen so many debates, talk and the like not just months but years from the election?

And the media is always the clue as to what the conspiracy-aka propaganda is selling.

So I heard Conyers this morning on Democracy Now. I was and still am a little confused about it.

I get that the votes aren't there. So it's a losing proposition.

But I'm still not sure how exposing the crimes of Bushco STOPS the election of 2008. That's what he seemed to be saying.

Oh yes-it will make the Dems "look bad" if they fail. And everything from health care to torture is LESS important than how the Dems "look". Because getting elected is the ONLY point. Not what they actually do when elected.

So what I've learned is: YOU CAN DO ANYTHING-and I do mean ANYTHING in the executive branch and get away with. There are NO consequences. Break the United States laws, defy the constitution, break international laws, steal, lie and yes TORTURE and it's okay.

Because there will be a DIFFERENT president in 2009. And that's all that matters. (That's certainly all that really matters to many even on this board-as long as a Democrat is in the White House it's Happy Days are Here Again-none of this nightmare is real or has any affects whatsoever!) Bush will be gone and the world will be okay. The last eight years will have never have mattered.

And justice certainly won't have.

I don't buy it. The legacy will be there. And someday someone will use it to BUILD on Bush's crimes. Why not? There are no consequences.

And I do NOT get how the investigations Conyers is pursuing are achieving anything. Not without consequences. So FAR all I've heard is "executive privilege" and "I don't remember."

I don't care if you impeach them, Mr. Conyers. I do care whether there is accountability. Yes, Bush et all will be gone in 500 or so days-but what will be left of America? The fantasy that a Democratic president is the answer to everythign is pure folly, shared by many on this board.

Everyone better pray there is a Democrat. And a really really good one. One that never uses absolute power. If there is EVER another Republican elected to the executive branch..well...oh yes..we are back to square one..letting the crimes of today be ignored....leads to worse crimes.

History.

[onenote]

95. what I thought he was saying was this

Starting an impeachment process that might well be defeated before it even gets going (because the requisite vote to authorize impeachment hearings by the Judiciary COmmittee will fail) or will result in an "acquittal" after a Senate trial will hurt the Democrats in 2008 by giving the repubs something to rally around (the failed "partisan effort to overthrow the president"), putting Democrats on the defensive.

Is he right? I think he probably is unless and until some repubs publicly signal support for impeachment giving it a bipartisan patina (as was the case in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments)

[puebloknot]

111. Points well made, and the reason that inherent contempt is even more important...

...than an impeachment proceeding, as a first step to taking back some control.

America is choking on "patina."

[rodeodance]

83. 2 years is enought time. Lame lame!

[DemReadingDU]

97. afternoon kick

[mzmolly]

102. Conyers needs a calendar. One that shows a future without taking action

to preserve our constitution.

I love JC and I think he's genuine, but I don't feel we have a choice.

[rateyes]

103. That's right. He needs a visit from

the Ghost of America Yet to Come.

[mzmolly]

104. Yes

indeed.

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. Conyers the rock star

I really think Mr Conyers is getting delusional or something. Does he think he's a friggin' rock star or something now??

"While the discussion of health insurance for all and the great congressman from Michigan were well-received with cheers and applause, the cries for impeachment took center stage. In what has become routine now, Conyers fed into the momentum asking "What should we do?" "IMPEACH!" cried the crowd. "What should we do?" "IMPEACH!" and so it was repeated. The congressman went on to declare that we needed to bring back Rumsfeld and put him on trial and the big question was to decide who ought to go first. "Cheney!" shouted the crowd enthusiastically. Some knowing impeach activists in the crowd called the bluff asking "When are you going to act on this?" He replied that he was going to meet with impeachment activists. "When?!" they called. "Right after this march. Right here!" and he pointed back stage."

Yeah, go Johnny! go Johnny! It's ur birthday! GO Johnny, go Johnny, it's ur birthday! :puke: Do you think you're Eminem or something?

Mr Conyers? Please stop pandering and get back to doing business like you're still pissed off and you aren't going to take it anymore...

[superkia]

125. Theres not enough time? What an ass!

So we just ignore the impeachable offenses and let more be committed or let more wars start? What is wrong with people!

[Swamp Rat]

133. DO YOUR FUCKING JOB CONYERS!

DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!!! :grr:

[Occulus]

134. Why have you stopped? The way is blocked.

What is blocking the way?
I do not know.
We shall be late.
Yes.
It is bad to be late.
I know.
But the way is blocked.
Yes.
So we must wait.
Yes.

SHAFT OF LIGHT

[wiggs]

135. Not only are they not pursuing impeachment, THEY ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE

of daily opportunities to shine light on the worst presidency ever. They should be saying every day that there are impeachable offenses and the republicans are standing in the way of oversight. They should say they aren't pursuing impeachment (if that's their decision) but if they were, these are the things that are impeachable, if not downright immoral and criminal.

They should be saying, with plain english, that criminals are in the white house and we are giving them a gift each day they remain there. They should be saying that if those in the WH had any integrity, they would apologize to us and to the world then resign. Why give them any credit at all by being passive and less than vigorous in our condemnation???

They should run through, daily, the failures and misdeeds of this administration...and THERE ARE SO MANY that there is not enough time left in this term to deal with one per day.

It's not just failure to impeach, which is clearly called for. It's failure to call attention to misdeeds in a manner commensurate with the severity of the transgressions. The line has been crossed over and over and over, and all we do is draw a new line further back.

This is ridiculous and outrageous and I'm disgusted. My disgust turns to fear of what my young daughters will face in their adulthood in the context of spying, torture, lack of checks and balances, polarization, unitary executive, permanent war, corporatist rule, loss of the middle class, loss of civil liberties, provocation of much of the rest of the world, imperialism, etc..

[BlooInBloo]

138. Though I'm in favor of impeachment, win or no, Conyers isn't totally wrong....

... It is true that a substantial amount of the benefit to be had from a acquittal can also be had through the normal hearings process.

[Senator]

147. The Constitution Isn't In Either Hand

He's got a Magic 8 Ball in one hand and his dick in the other.

(Yep, I said it out loud.)

---

[snappyturtle]

152. kick n/t

[The Stranger]

154. Remove from office all complicit traitors protecting the criminals leading the administration.

[The Stranger]

155. There are at least 218 Democrats claiming that they don't "have the numbers."

This is a conspiracy to protect criminals.

[Individualist]

156. It certainly is

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448