Conyer's Says 'NO' To Impeachment

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Conyers' hard choice: An expert on impeachment says not this time
by Jack Lessenberry | Dec 5 2007 - 10:32am |

"My best friends are my biggest problem," he told me, out of the blue, as we leaned up against a wine bar at the Hyatt Regency in Dearborn Saturday night. He wanted to talk about the possibility of impeaching the president.

Impeachment is something a lot of people talk about, but this guy's a little different. For one thing, he knows a lot more about it than anyone on the planet. For another, he has the power, if anyone does, to do it. Nor can anyone launch a legal effort to impeach George W. Bush or Richard Cheney without his say-so. I was talking, of course, to Congressman John Conyers.

Make that, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, now one of the most powerful men in Washington. He knows, more than most people, how deeply lawless President Bush is. He knows he deserves impeachment, and knows that Cheney does, probably even more so.

As a man who loves the Constitution, Conyers deeply loathes both these men, who have violated civil liberties and waged unjust war and sanctioned torture. He would be very happy, pleased and satisfied to see them gone. Yet he knows that trying to impeach Smirky and Snarly now would be a very bad idea. It would be an effort doomed to failure, and one he knows he needs to resist, for a number of compelling reasons.

"There aren't the votes there, period," said Conyers, who was in Dearborn for the American Civil Liberties Union's annual dinner. "You need 218 in the House to impeach and 67 in the Senate to convict, and 218 and 67 just aren't there," he said, peering over his glasses.

.......

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11402

[Cha]

1. But, why he isn't thinking

about bringing the charges against them even if they don't have the votes? Our country needs some offical tally of :wtf: they done to our government..the m$$$$$$$$$m hasn't keep us abreast.

Sure there's not other reasons then not enough votes?

[goclark]

12. Huum...

Threats maybe?

All of our leaders are afraid of the Bush Mafia.

[Double T]

2. bushco must have files, wiretaps, photos and videos on john...........

no wonder he doesn't want to impeach.

[Flatline]

33. They have that on all the Dems......

this is just a cloak and dagger game now.....I wish these People would GROW UP!!!!!

[polichick]

3. Why are Dems giving their candidates a pass on this??

That's flat-out crazy ~ we shouldn't even consider supporting a "leader" who won't vote for impeachment.

[I work for workers]

35. Because all the candidates know they are just as guilty.

Congress signed off on and legitimized every single fucked up thing Bush has done.

War? Check!
Wiretapping? Check!
Torture? Check!

Any attempt to impeach will be met by "But you, via a bipartisan majority, passed the law you are trying to impeach me for. I'll see you later at my Mission Accomplished:Iran party". There is enough blood to go around plenty of hands. Despite the authors sad attempt to make it all seem ok, Conyers knows this quite well.

[Cronopio]

44. Correctamundo!

This is a textbook example where political expediency and rationalizations like "*Our* insider group will do better than that other insider group." screws up the entire system. Hindenburg and Papen did a similar closed-door political tactic that gave Hitler the Chancellorship. I'm sure Conyers would reply, "Oh, but we're different."

No he isn't. Conyers, at the end of the day, is a politically expedient party man, and his legacy will unfortunately go down with the party.

[polichick]

45. But ultimately WE HAVE THE POWER...

Why are so many people supporting candidates who are in it up to their asses? There is at least one who is not "just as guilty."

[Mnemosyne]

4. It is not a fucking choice.

It is their fucking Constitutional DUTY!

I have lost my respect for Conyers, hearing this now. I don't give respect easily, so am more than a little upset hearing this crock of shit excuse.

I mourn our country. This hurts so deeply.

[Elidor]

5. This is one of those rare instances

Where failure is better than the alternative.

[Cha]

60. You got it hardhead..

Aren't these guys looking down in the path of history and thinking about what future generations will conclude with the NON action of this Congress?

[Wizard777]

6. NIEgate may change the stance of Republicans already trying to distance themselves from Bush.

If the Republicans initiate Impeachment. The Democrats are SUNK. Impeaching Bush and Cheney may be the Republicans only hope for 2008. If they do. Make no mistakes about it. The Democrats are SUNK.

[JFN1]

7. When are these fucks in Congress going to figure out its NOT ABOUT THEM?

It's about protecting the Constitution.

It's about the fucking TRUTH.

If they are so worried about losing, I say they are defeatist LOSERS themselves...

[wildbilln864]

8. Damn right!

It's their duty damnit! K&R!

[CookCountyResident]

13. Term limits

Term limits are starting to look better every day - for both houses!

[Tesha]

34. Never. I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is "Never".

Which is why they *ALL* need to be replaced, post haste!

Only when we stop supporting useless politicians of
*EITHER* major party will this stop.

Tesha

[wildbilln864]

9. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing! n/t

[Rageneau]

10. So we can't bring OJ to trial because the jury won't convict?

Our hands are tied?

There's no way to seek justice?

We know what the vote is regardless of what the evidence shows?

WTF, Conyers? WTF?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. In a regular trial you get an impartial jury

The US Senate is by no means impartial. If the jury selection process worked like it did for a regular trial I'd say go for it.

[Cronopio]

43. There is no such thing as an impartial jury.

The O.J. trial, if nothing else, proved this.

The fact that the jurors can be voted out of office in this case only supports the case for impeachment.

[Bozita]

11. History will view Congress by its paper record.

Historians will pore over the paper stuff with excruciating detail.

As of now, there's nothing there but approval of Bush things.

Nice work, Congress!

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. He's just another tool in the criminal junta's box....

an old, rusty, useless tool....

[Whisp]

64. another huge disappointment.

how many now because I've lost count?
who is next? are there any left to hold any kind of trust or hope in?

what a farce.

[Swamp Rat]

15. We need to elect Democrats who UNDERSTAND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!

:eyes:

[understandinglife]

16. Bull Shit. When Congressman Conyers publishes or states the above, in public ...

... I'll then call bull shit to the Congressman.

For now, this is second hand bs.

Given events of the past few days, more than ever, what needs to happen is for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House against, at a minimum, Bush and Cheney.

What will matter is just exactly how each member of the HR, and then, the Senate votes.

We need each of these paid employees of OURS to show us exactly what side of the law they are on and that includes Congressman Conyers.

[emlev]

17. What puzzles me about this...

Conyers says we can't impeach because there aren't the votes, and if we fail then that would deliver a win to the GOP that could give them the lift needed to win in '08.

He also says that if Cheney were impeached, the pResident might appoint Giuliani and give him a leg up for the presidency in '08.

BUT Conyers also says that impeachment would take over a year to accomplish. So a failure or an appointment of Giuliani as VP wouldn't even happen before the '08 election. Right?

What am I missing here?

[Senator]

32. The puzzle is: "How to tell reason from rationalization."

When someone has a good reason to do or not do something, they simply say what it is. Others may disagree, but if their reason is rational, and logical, and moral, it stands on its own to be respected.

When that is not possible, people engage in a frenzy of false meme rationalizations whose purpose is to try to convince the speaker themself (no pun intended) that their actions are not as wrong and damaging as they clearly are.

Conyers -- and the rest of the DC Dems -- are simply "shoveling it" as fast as they can.

---

[JHB]

47. Among the things wrong with that...

1) This Guliani business is crap: Congress has to approve a VP appointment. That's why Nixon chose Ford: The Democratic leadership back then told Dickie that he was the only Republican who'd get approval from Congress.

2) Conyers is apparently sniffing the Washington Insider Coke that thinks this would be just like the Clinton impeachment, not quite getting that Clinton went up in popularity despite a failed impeachment proceeding because everyone outside Washngton knew what bullshit the case against him was. It wasn't over matters of governance or abuse of state power. Not the case with Bush: it's ALL about matters of governance or abuse of state power -- of the highest order.

Laying out the case against Clinton only showed how thin it was behind all the smoke and mirrors. Laying out the cases against Bush would spotlight the mountain hiding behine the same fogbank.

"Don't have the votes"? Horseshit! You put together the case against Bush and Cheny in all its ugly detail and Republicans will bail on him in an eyeblink, at least enough to convict, and the rest will go down with him.

[Joe Fields]

18. That is such a BULLSHIT ANSWER!!!

"There aren't the votes there, period."

Every single one of our democratic leaders, who have any authority over impeachment have completely abdicated their constitutional duties. Traitors to this country. All of them!

[Cronopio]

42. I wish that, just once, somebody would respond to the "not enough votes" line with -

"That's why there's an investigation *before* the vote, stupid!" (Channeling Carville in '92)

Official evidence brought forth in an official impeachment investigation changes votes, both inside and outside the Beltway. Even if the evidence is already secretly known by members of Congress, knowing that the electorate also has that information would force them to change their public stance on the issue.

[Truth2Tell]

19. Every Bullshit answer was in this piece

Not enough votes

Not enough time

Would empower Bush if it failed

Would place a Repug in the catbird seat for 08

Would prevent all other work, prevent stopping the war



Sooo, call me crazy, but I have a very hard time believing Congressman Conyers actually believes all these Bullshit reasons. A few maybe, but all of these? Bullshit. The business about preventing all other work and not having enough time are patently absurd - especially coming from a man with such intimate knowledge of the workings of the Congress and of past impeachment proceedings. He knows full well Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time... and that previous impeachments have moved quickly.

I could maybe buy that he really believes it might empower Bush and/or a Rethug in 08. Aside from that I call total Bullshit. He either didn't say all this shit, or he really doesn't believe it.

God damn our country is in deep trouble. Damn.

[mmonk]

29. Those are his orders I imagine.

Those that hold his House Chairmanship over his head.

[Individualist]

59. His BS talking points reek of DLC

[provis99]

20. jeez. Conyers sounds practically Machiavellian

Doing the right thing doesn't seem to matter: its all about getting more power in the future. What happens to these politicians when they spend too much time in Washington? Does their moral compass just go awry?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. From "Nichomachus" -- Comments at SmirkingChimp

found at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11402 The comments are well worth spending some time reading.

Sometimes you just have to do it

There are times when success doesn't really matter. When the school bully pulls down your pants in the school yard and takes your lunch money every day, sooner or later you just have to take a swing at him.

It doesn't matter if you lose the fight. It doesn't matter if you get the snot knocked out of you. You just have to do it or you've given him all the power in the world.

I think Conyers is being too calculating by half. By not acting, the Democrats are giving the country and the world the impression that what's happening is just a normal swing of the political pendulum. It is not.

Democracy is on the line here, and if the Democrats won't stand up for it, then I can't see one reason in hell to vote for them or support them. This time around, my wallet is off the table.

The payoff will come when Conyers and the others abandon their responsibility to the country in the hopes of winning the next election and then they have it stolen out from under them again. With their pants around their ankles and the last of their lunch money gone, they will have been complicit in the destruction of the US democracy.
_______

Nichomachus | Dec 5 2007 - 11:54am |

[Cronopio]

46. You never lose the fight when you swing back at the bully.

You always win the most important thing - the knowledge that your self respect can survive getting the snot kicked out of you. The bully can't give you that self respect, you can only give that to yourself (and always without permission).

I learned this when I was six years old. It's embarrassing to watch sixty- and seventy-year-old Congresspeople who still haven't puzzled that fact of life out. But that's what spending too much time playing tactical politics does to a person's perspective.

[Cronopio]

48. So Conyers spent 42 years getting the power only to refuse to use it.

If he can vote for Nixon's impeachment and not vote for Bush's, I've got to wonder about his mental faculties. Or his real (vs. stated) principles.

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Why are Dems being cowards!!??

Bush of all public servants, deserves to be impeached.

[orleans]

24. jonathan turley explains it all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2382566

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Kick just for this

post. For those DUers who didn't read this Turley article, it explains everything. (Be glad when the new DU version is our so I can recommend a post.)

[orleans]

61. thanks. n/t

[orleans]

25. oh good. now he'll be able to hold public office again!! and so will cheney!!

i'm so excited--i can hardly wait!

[mmonk]

26. I'll have to say NO to voting for US House in 08.

One good screw deserves another.

[radfringe]

27. don't necessarily need the votes

just hearings, get the info out, tie it to the kool-aid repubs falling in line behind bush/cheney and make it a campaign issue which puts re-selection of repubs in jeopardy

with enough pressure - the repubs will march in lockstep up to bush's office and tell him it's time to leave.

[unblock]

28. the votes aren't there? maybe not, but they WILL be there

this is a chronic problem with vote-counting and polls. they take the pulse now, not in the future, when the vote matters.

[EFerrari]

30. It just occurred to me that this is his way of saying, the votes of

the Democratic Leadership aren't there. He's not talking about Republicans.

[Voltaire99]

31. Oh, go easy on old John. He's not the problem.

John has tallied the score better than many of you and he is a realist. He knows his party leadership and his colleagues. Knows that Bushism isn't a Republican thing: like the tango, it takes two parties. One to lead and the other to swoon!

Conyers has made his own Mephistophelean pact by serving under these swine and accepting their curdled values, but even so among the current lot he is far better than most. His contributions to exposing election fraud are worthy of your respect, but if you think he is going to buck a machine that wants nothing to do with prosecuting Bush and Cheney, you've been badly tricked.

The real culprit is, of course, the corporate Dems: the Clinton herd. Bush has been good for business for them! See how they've used your anger to good effect even as they've voted for each and every of his hideous policies. Even now they are counting on you, like obedient children, to put their figurehead in office next year.

I half think they're right to be confident, sadly enough.

[flashl]

36. What about supporting states power? Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual

JEFFERSON'S MANUAL

According to Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual, "there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion":

1) By charges made on the floor by a member of the House;
2) By charges preferred by a memorial filed by a House member;
3) By charges contained in a Resolution introduced by a House member;
4) By a message from the President;
5) By charges transmitted by a State legislature, or a grand jury;
6) By facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House.

Status of Impeachment in States

[KharmaTrain]

37. The Fight Is Against Immunity

Conyers knows this subject more than anyone else...and if he feels anywhere near I do, probably feels impeachment isn't good enough for this regime.

The actions that have happened are CRIMINAL...a political impeachment, especially a failed one would all but exonerate those crimes and prevent future actions...ya know, let's get this behind us. Conyers, like myself, wants a successful impeachment, but I want far, far more and those who want justice should be standing up as well.

The ultimate crimaes of this regime can never be rememdied by a bunch of weak-kneed politicians...it's gonna take place in criminal courts...foreign and domestic. It requires the United Nations and the World Court to investigate and prosecute the war criminals and profiteers (outside of U.S. law and beyond the reach where this regime can attempt to pardon itself out of any litigation). These cases have started in foreign courts and CREW and other groups are set to push their suits that get to the real meat of the crimes of this regime. Those who were interred and tortured at Gitmo, families of those massacred in Iraq and violations of international laws and treaties are the ultimate laws that this regime, its principals and enablers but be held to. Without it, this country not only can throw the Constitution out the window, but our standing in the international community as well.

Bottom line is Impeachment in an election year...a GENERAL election year...is a non-starter. The timing sucks. Besides the upcoming elections (and no one wants to run on Impeachment of a regime that will be gone on 1-20-09), several key legal question remain unresolved that could shield this regime from any real litigation...this is where Conyers and others are focusing. Also, any attempts to indict members of this regime is sure to meet with a pardon (just like Poppy)...so, sadly, it's almost best to defer prosecution until this regime can't immunize themselves.

There's no question this regime deserves to be impeached for their crimes...and I support Chairman Conyers call for a de-facto Impeachement that can pass the House and Senate rather than on that fails under the distractions of a vengeful corporate media and an election campaign. Electing large Democratic majorities in both houses will make Impeachment not only possible but will open up the flow of evidence that will make a conviction a sure thing.

Again...Impeachment only remedies a small amount of the crimes of this regime and then lets many of the biggest criminals walk free. We need to make sure there's no immunity for this regime (why the FISA debate is important) and that the ultimate justice is handled in criminal courts...not a political circus.

[flashl]

38. I believe your points are valid ...

I have always thought of the impeachment process as the U.S. version of South African's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Our 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' will serve to address many tuned-out Americans who are simply not aware that there is something terribly wrong in this country.

[KharmaTrain]

40. There Needs To Be Several Tracts Taken

Honest...if there were the votes to impeach in the house and convict in the Senate and banish booosh and cheney to the basement of the capitol in leg irons, I'm all for it. But "we are where we are"...and I think many need to long at a bigger picture here. I only wish the crimes were political ones...even on the scale of a Watergate...they're far beyond that and we've just hit the tip of the iceberg in what we know.

You really can't access the damage of the "building" until you can get inside it. Right now this regime not only isn't allowing us in the building, it's trying to keep us from getting into the neighborhood. This nut needs to be cracked to get the hard evidence that will lead to indictments and convictions and the restoration of the rule of law. Congress must provide the protections for those who want criminal redress against this regime to be able to press their cases...to restore Haebeus Corpus and investigate the political abuses of this regime. This investigation will take years as the corruption is so deep and the first priority of the next administration will be to stop further bleeding and restore some sanity to the government.

There's no way an Alberto Gonzalez or Karl Rove or Lurita Doan or Bradley Scholtzmann should go free for their abuses of power, obstructions and lying. Impeachment lets these people off the hooks. Criminal and civil suits won't...and this is where I see the ultimate justice coming. But it has to wait until this regime can't pardon its own...as we know they'll do.

Lastly, once this regime is gone, we need to convene a new Church committee to look into the damage this regime has done to our civil liberties and privacy. We must be vigillent when that time arises that puts the genies of executive excesses back in the bottle and restore the balance of power.

[KoKo]

50. The information Criminal Investigations need is shredded, deep sixed

hard drives, shredding trucks and "Geeks on Call" have done their work. And when they leave they will take whatever they haven't so far managed to erase. So, how does this help any Civil Suits going forward? If Congress could begin Impeachment hearings they could get access to what Bush is stonewalling on. But, they won't. They just keep writing "stern letters" which are ignored. Subpoena's aren't honored so Congress has given away all it's authority which means every President who comes after will have the the stonewalling tools Bush has used to keep Congress and the Courts out of their business.

Thinking that a "benevolent Dem President" will give back the power the Bushies have is underestimating what our Democrats would be willing to do. There's little difference in the parties these days and a Progressive will not be elected.

That's the worry. While I could accept what you say on one level ...I just don't think we can trust anything to move forward once the Bushies are out. There are still the Conservative Think Tanks and the Regent Graduates and Constitutionalists that Bushies have installed in every corner of our Government. Those folks won't be leaving and they aren't going to be turning over any information to Civil Lawyers from Crew or the International Courts. They will be in government undermining any new Administration along with the M$M which is even more controlled than it was in even 2004 when we might have had a chance of getting a Dem in who would turn Government away from the Bush Policies and start a clean out.

With the media owned and Ruppert Murdoch buying more and more of it...there will be nothing done. As much as many of us would want to "believe" ....we can see where "believing" has gotten us for 7 long years.

[flashl]

51. BINGO!

"There are still the Conservative Think Tanks and the Regent Graduates and Constitutionalists that Bushies have installed in every corner of our Government. Those folks won't be leaving and they aren't going to be turning over any information to Civil Lawyers from Crew or the International Courts."

Our "government" = private contractors + Bush appointees

[KharmaTrain]

52. I Can't Argue With You Koko

I always respect your opinions and perspectives. I'd like to think of the glass being half full rather than half empty for no other reason than to keep myself from going insane.

A couple points/thoughts. While a lot of evidence has been shreaded, there appears to be plenty out there that does exist to provide solid grounds for prosecutions. The "executive privilidge" veil is broad because of that. Some drives can be scrubbed, but if you can read between the lines in what Leahy has indicated, not all have been or that he has some other evidence that could be quite powerful. The courts will have to rule on this and the clear cut abuse of privilidge can't stand even in the Roberts court.

I agree that once the power is granted, it's hard to return it back. Part of this job will be on our shoulders...and others...as we work to elect more liberal and progressive representatives. I would hope our goals here are long term and that each election sets up the stage for the next round of advances.

Turning around what will be 8 years of executive abuse won't happen overnight...even more important, 20 years of Repugnican messes (going back to Raygun) and going through the Gingrich years and onto the boooosh regime will take years to correct as well. Consider it our Project for a new American Century. :rofl:

:hi:

[KoKo]

65. Ahh...I totally understand your "long slog" view of it....

I guess I'm bitter that it didn't have to be a "Long Slog" if we'd had real Dems who had spine. From Daschle on down they've SOLD US OUT. And it will take time for many Dems to realize what we are up against. Therefore we don't have the solid troops with us...because so many are just realizing they've been "sold out" and there's not enough to help us with BIG MOMENTUM.

It will truly be a long slog...and, as I said, I understand what you say...because you are looking to the future figuring we can't do much here in the "here and now" given what we have in Congress. I just keep thinking we need to press what we've got in there now harder and hold THEM as accountable for what's gone wrong as we hold Bush and the Repugs.

I always read and respect what you say...even when I disagree, too. :hi:

[yodermon]

56. Help me understand

Are you saying that no criminal charges should be brought against any of these clowns while shrub is still president because shrub could (and would) simply pardon the lot of them? (e.g. scooter)

And, are you saying that a successful impeachment effort would almost certainly result in criminal charges, therefore we shouldn't impeach?

Point being, that even if we successfully get them out of office, they'll be able to pardon themselves all the way to Paraguay?

If so, then I think I agree.

[LeftCoast]

57. I think you've hit the nail on the head

I'd love to see them impeached and convicted as well, but barring that a long stint in prison for them would be acceptable.

[tbyg52]

66. Boy, do I hope you are right

It *is* criminal, not just impeachable, supported by completely public records - and who knows what else is lurking out of sight?

Still, I can't help thinking that those who won't impeach won't prosecute either.

[spanone]

39. doomed to failure?.......doesn't matter mr. conyers....it's your duty.

[pleah]

49. Chickenshit!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Why bother with anything that might lose? Like taking on the British Empire in 1776.

Those bunch of guys didn't have the votes either.

[yodermon]

54. He's operating under the False Assumption that an Acquittal in the Senate

is a bad thing.

How the Senate votes is moot.

It is the public airing of the charges against this regime that is important. How many times have we said here on DU "If everyone knew what we know about these crooks, there would be a massive uprising against them". Well, guess what: impeachment hearings are the way to accomplish this. The media would be forced to cover it, and discourse on it would not be limited to left-wing blogs and DU.

If they do hold impeachment hearings, with testimony, and subpoenas, and evidence, then the public will be so FUCKING outraged that (a) repuke senators will *have* to switch their vote to "Convict" to avoid even get re-elected, or (b) they won't get re-elected.

Just hold the hearings, John.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. A lot of people already know the charges

and just don't care.

People are not unaware of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, or of the wiretapping. But a large percentage of Americans think they're justified. Sad, but true.

Just airing the charges won't change a lot of people's minds. And the media aren't going to only air one side of it - they're going to air the Republican response, too: Democrats are trying to stage a coup during a time of war! Democrats are coddling terrorists! etc. etc.

There's no reason to believe public sentiment would change suddenly.

[bdamomma]

55. apparently something is going on

impeachment is a tool to be used, not this resistance that is being displayed by saying there are not enough votes. I mean :wtf: it didn't take no time for the repigs to cry and whine about impeaching clinton.

[Marr]

58. I don't vote for people to look out for their political party's best interests.

They have duties, and in this case, holding impeachment hearings is a duty.

However, even if you accept their party-centric arguments, I still think they're wrong. Holding impeachment hearings now would accomplish two things politically, no matter how the vote came out:

1. They'd bring alot of the Bush Administration's dirty laundry out in the open.

2. Politicians would have to state clearly which side they're one, and if the Republicans managed to stop it, it would be very clear. Impeachment is a popular idea now.

One of the problems the Democrats in Congress are facing right now is that people have a hard time determining whether they're pushing the Bush agenda or just unable to override the Republicans. Impeachment hearings would settle that question once and for all.

Then again, after reviewing the sort of things that our Congressional leaders will allow to the floor vs. what they will not allow, I rather suspect they largely *are* on board with the Bush agenda, and that's really the biggest reason they don't want to impeach.

[EVDebs]

62. Sometimes you just gotta do what you just gotta do. Obey woke up to that. Conyers will too.