I'd like to drop a thought about Pelosi, Conyers and impeachment...

[WilliamPitt]

...without having to move to Fiji, live in a tree and change my name to Palm Frond. :)

Posted this in my (wince) other Conyers thread, but it got long, and this is something I think everyone needs to either remember or understand. It was in response to a comment from a DUer who was dissapointed by...

"his apparent lack of enthusiasm for impeachment"

I can give you two reasons.

1. He can do math, and we're not there yet. I can see the wisdom of doing it anyway but doing it so well that by the time we reach the Senate, we'll get 67 like handing out candy. But that's uphill as hell, and that alone doesn't make everyone do handsprings, and...

2. He's not as spry as he was when Nixon went, and he remembers what that was like, and if I was his age, even if Bush is slaughtering babies on the Truman balcony, and I was the Judiciary chairman, I'd still be like, "Oh fucking great. I already need a nap." It'll be his bag. For a year. He has his staff to consider, his other legislative prioprities (he might have them, ya know :) ) and basically the kind of shitpile that neither you nor I nor keyboard jockeys of any stripe knows about.

Also, the House isn't like the Senate with it's 100 people and one or two standing together can move the moon. The House is 435, you need 217 to take a leak, plus the committees.

These House people are absolutely required to operate like very polite, well-dressed street gangs, which is what you have to do if you're going to be effective for your constituency, which is pretty much the reason you're there. Think Feingold. He mostly runs alone and throws weight. That is more rare than Halley's Comet in the House. The one who runs alone in that moveable feast will be going home in two years broke and sure of defeat because he passed nothing to help his district.

You become a bloc, six people or 20 or even three, and when someone approaches you to do some legislation, she gets your help on your bill and you get hers, and she gets your six and you get her five, and your bill passes and her bill passes, and two Democratic Reps just helped their people at home and kept the majority strong. This is key to my point:

If he has made deals with other House members on serious legislation (jobs, pay, health, environment, jobs, he's from Detroit, jobs), they're going to be looking at him like, "Um, hey, are you going to be on the planet? Are you going to nuke the House for a year? Cuz if you are, I might as well retire now, because if I don't get my jobs bill passed for my district where the base closed and the plant went south, I will get beat, and you will take out lots of people like me, all the guys in my crew won't pass anything and we'll be gone, and you and every other chair and the party will be back having hearings in the broom closet."

(I had to cover a bunch of those broom closet hearings, sitting on a bucket with no light bulbs in the ceiling and blogging from a phone, and the witnesses were amazing and nobody in America saw it because the room had no outlets and no room for cameras, and never again, folks)

His six guys lose their bills, the deals they made with others fall apart, and this stuff isn't as simple as pushing a button, hell, or even being right. Wish it was, but it ain't.

*koff* Pelosi *koff* ... if she has people in a crew and they have bills, she has to consider them and all that, because she's responsible for keeping the majority, and if her ten guys go down because nothing happened but impeachment, she will never get guys again and never pass anything to help anyone, and we'll collectively lose ten, plus anyone who had deals with those ten, and we're back to GOPers passing bills against gay men with penises and all Muslims and the color blue. Did I say never again? One more time. Never again.

This is the thing about majority. You can kind of wing it when you're in the broom closet, because you won't get passed a bill declaring America to be awesome. When you're in the majority, all of a sudden you have 271+ from 271+ districts, and they all need different stuff for those districts, and *gasp* not all or even most of them want a piece of impeachment. That other stuff might actually matter.

They may agree in theory, but they have thousands at home who need a new plant or roads project or hospital, and when you go back and start talking about the principle of the thing, you'll be right but they'll be broke and out of work without insurance, and they'll hit you with a brick and never look at you again.

Oh, and you'll lose, your guys will lose, their guys will lose, they'll all come beat you up, and we're back to denouncing the color blue and guys like the Hammer running the show and me in the broom closet, and I'll have to jump into Dupont Circle traffic if that happens, and it'll be on you. :P

Just because we want something doesn't mean we can get it. I don't envy Pelosi or Conyers. They've got us roaring at her and copping squats in their offices and running against them (which is our role), and their bloc roaring at them because one needs a hospital for sick babies and the other needs a base and the other wants to increase high-tech industry near the airport...

(Illinois 6, where pretty much everyone works at the airport, and the airport needs expansion, but the money isn't there unless the high-tech comes in, and that's a long two years work, and impeachment wha? and that's what I mean. You have the Illinois 6 in your crew, and you're suddenly an air-traffic controller because she needs you and you need her and her people need jobs and so do yours...and there are districts like that all over, and they have to be accounted for)

...and if you nuke the House with impeachment, you could kill your guys and their guys, all those collective constituents, the majority control, and some Hammer-like person snatches your gavel and goes off on the color blue, again. I'm solid for impeachment, but it'll be a long slog, and I'll be surprised if it leaves the conference room, because see up there.

To be considered. I find this reasonable and I always try to keep it in mind, but I might be a DINO sellout or something, was it DNC or DLC...have to check my messages and bank account.

:)

P.S. I don't want to live in a tree in Fiji, and Palm Frond is a really dumb name. Have mercy on this poor fool.

[meegbear]

1. Can I get an Amen?

:applause:

[philosophie_en_rose]

144. a-freaking-men!

:woohoo:

[wndycty]

2. Will using logic, pragmatism and strategy is not appreciated by many here on DU

Fortunately I'm not one of those people.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Ain't that the truth. Some of the best ideas are not feasible with a slim majority. nt

[WinkyDink]

124. Strategy with Bushco has worked so well, I guess.

[pnwmom]

4. What a great post. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'd give you a thousand recs if I could.

[debbierlus]

5. I respectfully disagree...& here is why

There has to be a time when you say ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

And, that time is here.

The reason I won't let impeachment drop is the simple fact that this isn't a PAST event we are talking about. Bush has become emboldened to the point that he completely ignores Congress. He is breaking the laws & expanding his power EVERY day.
If this was one act that would be reliving ancient history, I would agree, let it lie.

But, this is an EXTREME situation, a Constitutional Crisis. And, the remedy for that is impeachment.

This isn't even just about Bush anymore, this is about the entire means by which future executives may govern.

The preservation of our constitutional system hangs in the balance & that overrides any deals or individual Congress people.

TIME TO ACT!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Thank you debbierlus. I couldn't have said it better myself! nt

[WilliamPitt]

24. I agree

But if I'm yelling enough is enough at a brick wall, the wall won't move and I'll have yelled at it.

I need a few people to do the wall, and they need me for other stuff, but if we do the wall, their stuff won't happen.

Enough has been enough since 1946, and it ain't all Pelosi's fault or Conyers, and yelling at the wall won't do anything.

You're so right. I wish it was enough.

[eridani]

164. Well, what other stuff is getting done?

Hasn't Bush vetoed just about everything anyway?

[tomp]

184. there is an indigenous people somewhere...

...whom i read about once. it seems, due to lack of appropriate technology, that they fell their larger trees by circling them and yelling at them. it works. might be fiji, i forget.

[LuckyLib]

6. Amen. I still have vision of sugarplums, er perp-walks dancing in my head, and I want to see those

bastids OUT. Thanks for the dose of reality. That thing called democracy is a messy thing, especially when we're facing down the BushCo.

[thereismore]

7. Politics. What can I say. For want of a nail... nf

nothing further

[azurnoir]

8. Thank you!!!!

K&R

[grasswire]

9. one question, Will

Have you watched the Bill Moyers-John Nichols-Bruce Fein PBS program on impeachment? Many have been impressed with the need for haste because of their impassioned arguments in support of the Constitution. I'd like to know if you have seen it.

[WilliamPitt]

27. I have sen it, but I don't need to

535 others do.

[tbyg52]

151. So, let's see if we can't get links sent to all of them.

I'll do TX-22 and the Siamese Senators.

PBS link to transcript and video:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

5-min YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2rqww-eOIs
(Don't know what part it is--I'm on dialup.)

30-sec YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Okr0upuN8
(Ditto.)

[pnwmom]

10. Recs, please, everyone! Let's put this on the Greatest Page.

[Raven]

11. Nice name. Why didn't I think of that!

:-) Reality is a bitch. Fantasy Land is much more fun. What I don't understand is why people can't count...the votes, it's all in the vote count at this point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I believe Conyers is the one who can't count

http://www.flickr.com/photos/derami/878564651/in/set-72157600971193075/

And the most important number of all: http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Raven]

21. What am I missing here? How many votes do we have in the

House to Impeach and in the Senate to convict?

[rateyes]

46. Less today than we WILL have once we start the hearings. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. And how hard is Conyers working to get those votes?

Once the impeachment hearings begin, the votes will be there. But you got to start those hearings, Mr. Conyers!!

[Raven]

65. And how would you know that. Last time I worked in a political

job (which was eons ago) when you wanted to get a bill through you counted the votes and you did not normally file a bill knowing that you did not have the votes but hoping you might get them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. Well I believe that once they see the evidence

the republicans will jump over to support impeachment. The hearings would be televised, would they not? And every single republican in Congress is running for re-election next year.

[coalition_unwilling]

119. Impeachment proceedings in the House typically start with

a Resolution of Inquiry, i.e., a resolution to hold hearings. A bill of impeachment may or may not be voted out of committee. But to take impeachment "off the table" before hearings are even held smacks of "the fix is in."

You know, maybe a bill of impeachment won't get voted out of committee but at least members will be on record and the ills to the body politic wrought by the transgressions of this administration will have been disinfected somewhat by the transparent light of day.

For me, personally, impeachement no longer suffices. I won't personally be satisifed until the entire criminal gang are put on trial for war crimes before an International Tribunal fashioned after Nuremburg.

[onenote]

148. Impeachment start with a vote by the full House to authorize hearings

That's the rub. You don't typically get to the substantive impeachment hearings until the full House has voted a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry and investigation (i.e., hearings). That's what happened in the Nixon case and in the Clinton case. In the Nixon case, the resolution (passed in Feb 1973, a full year before the Judiciary Committee voted on articles of impeachment) was approved by a 410-4 vote. In the Clinton case, the resolution picked up 31 Democrats.

In other words, there was bi-partisan support in both of these instances for holding hearings. WIthout that bi-partisan support -- and I don't see any signs of it at this point -- there almost certainly are enough blue dog Democrats who would vote against the resolution to start the process.

Its not substantive hearings first and then resolution. The steps are:

Full House vote on whether to authorize House to conduct impeachment inquiry.
Judiciary hearings/investigation
Judiciary Committee vote on articles
Full House vote on whether to adopt articles.
Senate trial.

The problem is that there isn't enough support for the first step.

[coalition_unwilling]

187. Thanks for that clarification. If I read you correctly, then, Conyers

doesn't have power to convene and hold hearings in Judiciary, absent a vote to authorize by full House?

I do think at the very least that hearings in Judiciary are merited. We at DU need to be careful not to short-circuity due process for *, if we claim to value due process for others.

[onenote]

23. another amen here

Some DUers seem to be under the misimpression that all Pelosi (and Conyers) have to do is snap their fingers and impeachment happens. I suggest that they come to DC, work here for awhile, and see how it really works.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I did

I was there in June. And I have many good friends there now who have been there for months. Pelosi's staff threatened to arrest my friends for being in her office. They walked in, asked to meet with the speaker or her staff and they were threatened with arrest unless they left. I repeat - they entered her office and were told they would be arrested! No signs, no singing, no pink outfits, just 3 American citizens (and Democrats no less!) who wanted to TALK TO the speaker of the house.

Then yesterday Conyers had more citizens arrested. You can argue that they raised a stink and perhaps deserved to be arrested. But they have been talking to him for YEARS and until he was made head of the judiciary committee, he appeared to share their goals.

I know how it really works in DC. And it makes me sick to my stomach. Yes, I agree every DUer needs to go there and see just how well these Democrats are representing us. And they better have bail money when they go there!!

[Vanje]

102. Heres what I want Conyers and Pellosi to do

Get to a microphone.
Plug it in.
Turn it on, and say words to this effect, "Because of what we've been hearing from thousands upon thousands of Americans, we'd like to find a way to put impeachment back on the table."

[Yukari Yakumo]

130. Meanwhile...

Millions and millions of Americans will pay no attention to that. While Faux Noise Channel and M$M spin this 'til the cows comes home.

[Vanje]

133. When Pelosi and Conyers start talkng about impeachment,...

Impeachment will become a serious issue.
They dont have the votes now ,and they never will if impeachment is, as Pelosi said, off the table.

What does Fox News have to do with it?
Do you suggest that members of congress should make decisions based on fear of what Fox News may say?

[TahitiNut]

43. I was always told "Don't count your chickens before they hatch."

I would advise all the anti-impeachment folks to get out of the chicken business.

:evilgrin:

[onenote]

135. any political leader that doesn't count votes in advance is soon a former leader

[TahitiNut]

137. Any politician that just goes along with the crowd isn't a "leader." Not even close.

:shrug:

[JVS]

140. Darn fucking tootin!

[onenote]

147. when the "crowd" are the members of Congress whose votes are needed

what choice is there.

Methinks you misapprehend the role of the Speaker. THe Speaker isn't a dictator who tells members how to vote. If, as there is every reason to believe, a significant portion of the Democratic caucus have made it clear that they are not interested in pursuing impeachment at this point in time and, more importantly, if a significant number of blue dog Democrats have made it clear to her that they will not support such an effort unless and until there is a modicum of bi-partisan support (as was the case when the repubs started the Clinton impeachment effort), she wouldn't be much of a leader is she called a vote that (a)the caucus doesn't want and (b) loses, thus damaging the party.

[mzmolly]

145. "Reality is a bitch. Fantasy Land is much more fun."

LOL, I can see the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Troops are still dying...

Bush is still breaking the law right and left.

But hey. Minimum wage has been raised to $5.85

:thumbsup:

[WilliamPitt]

26. You didn't even read it, did you.

Do you need to tell me about the troops? You think?

How many emails did you get last week from mothers, sisters and soldiers? I got eleven, and that was an easy week. And one of them said JUST DO IT.

So, if JUST DO IT isn't an answer, what is?

Or maybe you just needed to tell me about the troops and feel good. Job well done.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Oh, I read it.

Thought it was pretty much a bunch of lame, apologetic excuses. Quitter talk.

"So, if JUST DO IT isn't an answer, what is?"

Actually, that's where I stand. Just do it. Impeach. Cut the funding. Just fucking do it.

[WilliamPitt]

How?

If that's where you stand, you're pretty much useless. Sorry, but there it is. I agree with you, but you're snarking at me because we actually need a plan and all you are is a fucking walking protest sign. Water you twice a week and turn you towards the sun.

Turn off the lights when you go. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back and find a mirror and sayb "Yeah" to yourself. We'll be getting ulcers and staying up for days trying to accomplish what the walking protest signs want but without getting any help from them at all, and yeah, even sometimes getting shit from them because we're not walking fucking protest signs.

People like you are among the major reasons why the GOP has any power at all. Our activist base is riddled with people like you, and when the mountain doesn't fly and someone can't accomplish your fucking protest sign you turn on them, and you fuck us all and yourself.

You're a megaphone shouting slogans for problems that need actual serious and complicated solutions. We lose because of people like you. There has never been in history any election won by a protest sign, walking or otherwise.

Try walking door to door, or driving old people to the polls. You feel pretty good about yourself right now, but not for any good reason (unless you do that stuff, in which case I apologize), and you'll feel really good about yourself after you do that.

Because you'll see it isn't about you feeling good. Ever. At all. Go get some Jergens and a hand towel if you want that. It's quick and a hell of a lot less messy, and it'll keep your hands occupied for a while and you won't be a walking fucking protest sign. You'll be a busy self-fucking gooey person, but at least the good feelings will make some sense.

Fucking dare to throw dead troops at me. Find that mirror, but don't you dare pat that back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. How for which?

Bringing the troops home? You cut the funding. How? You not sign the funding. Conyers didn't sign it. Pelosi didn't sign it. Problem is, most dems did. Am I supposed to believe two of the most powerful reps in House couldn't have put more effort into defeating it?

Or do you mean impeachment? How about Conyers just announce he's for it. He can say he'll vote for it if it comes up. He can ask Pelosi to put it back on the table. In fact, isn't he chair of the committee that does that sort of thing? So why doesn't he?

"People like you are among the major reasons why the GOP has any power at all. You're a megaphone shouting slogans for problems that need actual serious and complicated solutions. We lose because of people like you. There has never been in history any election won by a protest sign, walking or otherwise."

I don't think you really believe that. I think you're trying to convince yourself of something, but I can't figure out what.

[WilliamPitt]

78. Turn towards the light.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Which one?

I see three of them.

[WilliamPitt]

105. The one always shining on you for such brave activism

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Stopping bushco trumps everything in my book

Roads, hospitals, airports, you name it. NONE of that is as important as putting the breaks on this regime.

I would love to know the details of the conversation Conyers had with Cindy. Is he even trying to get votes for impeachment? Or has he just given up? Is he working as hard to impeach bushco as Cindy and her supporters are? Or has he given up?

I feel like I need to know those details before I go ballistic on Conyers' ass. I am really torn between feeling sorry for him and wanting to scream at him.

[pnwmom]

15. But if stopping him puts the Rethugs back in power in 2008,

we'll have won the battle and lost the war.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Why would stopping him put the republicans back in power?

This is why people constantly accuse congressional dems of lacking a backbone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Well obviously, I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in July of that happening

if we impeach. Of course, the people who vote won't know the details of the evils of bushco without impeachment hearings. So if we don't impeach, then yes, the rethugs will probably retake Congress in 16 months.

[pnwmom]

40. And how do we run impeachment hearings if Bush continues

to claim Executive Privilege with regard to all testimony?

Unfortunately, I think it's overly optimistic to think that 2/3 of the present Senate would vote to convict him on the grounds that he wouldn't cooperate in the impeachment process.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. You can't claim executive privilege in impeachment hearings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. I am going to have that tattooed on my forehead

[creeksneakers2]

161. Bush could still try to claim executive privilege

There is no court case that says executive privilege can't be raised in impeachment hearings.

The few court cases that there are on executive privilege say that its presumed. That means Congress would have the burden of proving a need for the information. The court defines that as a "legislative purpose." If the legislative purpose is to decide on future laws, and the information sought is about past events the courts will say that Congress doesn't need to know what exactly happened in the past to regulate the future. They'll rule for the president. Congress could claim the legislative purpose is oversight but that's a weaker argument.

Impeachment is a core legislative power. Hearings on impeachment require exact knowledge of prior events and even knowledge of facts that could lead to knowledge of prior events. There would be a very strong argument that there is a valid legislative need for information.

Bush can still claim executive privilege for impeachment information but those claims would be unlikely to be upheld.

[WinkyDink]

126. Based on what historical precedent? Jimmy Carter's 1976 victory?

[WilliamPitt]

32. I agree.

How?

P.S. If you go ballistic on Conyers, he'll look at you with that face like the Mississippi delta, nary a twitch on it because he's seen barking dogs to make any of us look like parakeets, and he'll shake your hand and thank you, and you'll feel like a dick because you yelled at this guy, and all the same problems will be there when you leave...

...and if he really wants to fuck you up, he will give you a detailed description of the complications that will make my post look like the stuff on a matchbook cover. One dumb rep from nowhere gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy, and the other side has pictures, and that guy is in a massive swing bloc for stuff you want...can paralyze an agenda completely and until that guy is gone. That's only a theoretical, but hell, it's DC, who knows.

Being right in the minority is awesome if you like being right and loud and never getting anything done. Being right in the majority makes you look like Tip O'Neill. When you're 30.

Being right in a room with 435 people, each with thousands depending on them in wildly different districts with wildly different needs, plus the myriad blocs plus the leadership, is even worse.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Will, have you seen this:

I just now posted it. The battle lines have been drawn. :cry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1421593&mesg_id=1421593

[progressoid]

14. No mercy for you, Palm Frond!

You've become one of them haven't you?! Is there a pod in your office? Because, you sound like a politician.




Oh yeah...:sarcasm:

[wiggs]

16. No flames..nice to see reasoned discussions. But please go to the link and

read about a couple hundred thousand more reasons to remove -- or try to remove -- these guys from office....even trying helps. We need to show the world America is not represented by the WH:

"O God! Pardon our living and our dead, the present and the absent, the young and the old, the males and the females.

I am a Muslim I am Iraki.

what america does to irakis especially to our children

Do not come to me talking of your feelings. Do not come to me asking for forgiveness. Who do you think you are?

I will not ever forgive or forget what your country has done to us. I will not ever forget or forgive what your country has done my family, my city, my country, my people.

Never.

My grandchildren’s, grandchildren, will teach their grandchildren to hate America for what she has done to us. Never ever ever will I, or they, forget or forgive what your barbaric country has done to us.

Never."

This was written by the 16 year old nephew of an Iraqi doctor. The doctor treats injured and dying children every day and does not perceive much difference between the WH and democrats who are holding hearings and having debates. The author of the firedoglake article "Ordinary Germans Like Ourselves" (www.firedoglake.com ) adds:

"We’re all a part of this. We have not done enough. We have not spoken out when we should have. We have taken the easy way and as a result, we are all complicit to war crimes. For every day that we hem and haw and our elected representatives play tiddly-winks with each other in Congress, more and more and more people die. More children are orphaned. More mothers watch their children suffer and die for lack of food, medicine, and clean water."

There are a LOT of suffering and angry people in Iraq who need to know that Americans are different than the criminals in the WH. We need to show them exactly who they should be angry at, to show them we don't tolerate immoral, illegal unjust wars against civilians. We need to clearly separate ourselves from the officials in government who foisted this disaster on the world.... first firing them from their jobs then punishing them for their lies, illegal activities, corruption, and war mongering.

Then maybe the 16 year old and the doctor and a few hundred thousand other victims will understand. This is of no small importance for them and for us. In fact, I'm not sure there's anything more important at the moment, including bills in homestates that might fund a couple new roads or community centers.

[Vincardog]

22. Will I hate to agree with you. You make excellent points. BUT there comes a time when

the harm being done is so great that it transcends party and politics.

I do not believe that Congress is limited to single tasking.
I do not believe that anyone will be sorry for their part in killing the cancer that has infected our government.

I do believe that we must impeach and lay bare the crimes and criminals that are ruining our name and our honor.

I believe when their crimes and machinations are laid bare for all to see the votes will be there to remove them.

IF I did not hold this hope I would even now be shopping for my new homeland.

[WilliamPitt]

28. I agree.

How?

[Vincardog]

47. The AGAG hearings on Cspan3 today were a start. The closer to the election and the more BS that come

the further the REpigLICKINS will know they have to run from the shrub to have any hope of keeping their seats.

The next step is for the Judiciary committee to set Fitz us as independent counsel on AL Gonzo. There is no "Executive Privilege" in Impeachments or CRIMINAL investigations.

I am just saying if we wait for DimSon and Darth to nuke Iran and declare Martial Law it will be too late.

[thoughtanarchist]

25. You make a good case...

but the question keeps coming back:

How did the cons do it in '98?

It did not look like a very tough slog back then, but then again they didn't get a conviction either.

[Blue_Roses]

37. The "cons" did it in '98 'cause

from the moment Clinton stepped foot in the oval office (hell, even before then) they were looking, prying, searching, and praying for a way to get him. He made it easy for them.

However, they didn't get it done all the way, 'cause the Senate acquitted him, just like they would do for Bush...if it even got that far.

[Blue_Roses]

42. I often wonder

how many here really, REALLY don't get the fact that in order to CONVICT for a full impeachment, there has to be a 2/3 majority voting to "convict," or how many just like to stir the pot.

Probably a little of both.

:crazy:

[Virginia Dare]

54. Indeed and they had already spent MILLIONS trying..

to get an iron clad case against Clinton, and Ken Starr just simply told them this was the "best" they were going to get. They gambled that they could do enough damage to get the White House back in 2000, and of course, they did.

[Blue_Roses]

94. Yep, you're exactly right.

I don't think some here realize the FORCE that was behind getting the "goods" on Clinton. They had an agenda, all the way down to sending him that letter (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) requesting "Iraq intervention" :eyes:

It was NEVER about the "blow-job," but they sure tried. No, this was about power...something--while-it-is-ever-so-waining--they still have. Talk about rally the troops behind Bush if impeachment proceedings were to start...it would be bloodbath. They may not like Bush, but one thing is for sure, they like power and they won't give it up without a massacre.

[creeksneakers2]

162. The way the GOP got the White House back in 2000

was to count on Nader and the Greens and the people like Cindy Sheehan who profess that there is something to be gained for the left by letting Democrats lose to Republicans. Republicans lost seats in '98 and only pulled 49% in 2000.

[LanternWaste]

91. The republic's whips had a bite to them...

How did the cons do it in '98?

My opinion: The republics were unified on almost every issue at that point. We're not. The republic's whips had a bite to them. Our whips don't have the same force.

Bear in mind-- what happened to President Clinton's approval rating during and after the proceedings? Answer: They boggled the imagination and increased. I fear the same thing happening in reverse.

I'd hate to see the conservative base unify again for the first time in three years, giving them a shot at the '08 elections.

[Virginia Dare]

97. Exactly, nothing would solidify their base more..

why give them something to rally around, keep hammering away at them on the war, make them justify Bush's unjustifiable actions.

[Blue_Roses]

100. that's exactly right

Why put the emphasis on us, when it should be them...?

[Mojorabbit]

173. All thirty percent of them? eom

[Blue_Roses]

101. I call it "the FORCE"

;) that unified them. The FORCE of power and hate for the Clintons and progressiveness.

[Virginia Dare]

103. But you know Blue_Roses..

the Clintons are just Repuke lite DINOS. :sarcasm:

[Hawkowl]

29. Convict after 2008

I agree with all you're saying. I think impeachment is not likely. But there must be a reckoning. I mean that after Bush is out of office, and a dem is elected president, that these criminals are pursued to the ends of the earth, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and bankrupted. There will be no pardons, commutations or mercy. Period. And I will vote for whatever candidate I think will do this.

[Virginia Dare]

48. Yes, that's exactly what needs to be done...

:kick:

[CitizenLeft]

153. yes

When we have a bigger majority in both houses, absolutely nail their criminal asses to the wall.

Hear, hear.

[KoKo]

31. Yes, Will....what you say is a view....But, we remember when Daschle had a "plan"

keeping his powder dry....We remember how we got to this point. I'm sorry if Conyers is tired and not still "on his game" and maybe he promised too much when he was down in that basement and you were sitting on a bucket trying to blog. But, promises were made and it's been too long watching things get worse and worse with one excuse after another...keeping "powder dry" for the big fight...giving enough rope until they hang themselves. Now thier "rope" has run out the whole world and 2/3rds of America can see that the gallows is the last option.

It's been too long and too much crime. Cheney has to be impeached along with Gonzo. Or, Conyers does "Inherent Contempt" and has to take on a trial to get to the truth because the Courts won't do it. If he's too tired then he can turn over the Chair to another capable Democrat on his Committee who might just have the energy to try to take back what's left of our shredded Constitution.

It's clear from that hearing today that Gonzo/Rove are already working to fuck another election by changing the rules in the DOJ Handbook. There are other processes well in place. We don't need another War to distract us...or more failures in our elections system or another "oops" we got attacked.

It's too important to stop them NOW before they can do any more damage. Bruce Fein and others have made that clear. They went to far...and must be stopped. There is no other business that is more important than the Judiciary Committees DO THEIR JOB.

[formercia]

33. It won't do any good to move to Fiji

You will just have to stand there and take it like a Man.

[NeedleCast]

34. Excellent Post

Nothing to add except a bravo and a Rec.

[LynneSin]

35. You got a problem with Palm Fronds in Fiji? You have an issue with this.....

Gotta find something to flame you for!

[mulsh]

36. Oh My God,

someone who put a bit of thought into his opinion about impeachment. Thanks

[Usrename]

38. You're living in a world of make-believe.

The only bar to impeachment is the party leadership.

Period.

[WilliamPitt]

39. Proof?

[Usrename]

57. Proof?

What difference do the facts make?

You want to live in a fantasy world.

[pnwmom]

51. You seem to be living in a world of the simple-minded.

Impeachment will achieve nothing without conviction.

Clinton was impeached, and he was more popular at the end of his term than in the beginning.

Impeachment without conviction will further trivialize the process in the eyes of most Americans.

[Usrename]

61. Clinton?

A blowjob?

You compare a blowjob with treason and bribery.

Simple-minded.

Sure.

[Blue_Roses]

77. You can't compare a blow-job with treason and bribery...

just like you can't compare Clinton to Bush. What you CAN compare is the witch-hunt to realism. Do you think it's a coincidence that Clinton got caught? While many believe that this administration has done more than a lifetime of damage to this country, deserving not only impeachment, but prison, the reality is, some people are in office to actually try to help their constituents.

That is what makes the difference. I think those who see impeachment as a waste of time, know that it WILL BE a waste of time, when there are far more things that could be done to help the people in this short time.

Also, the likelihood of impeaching both Bush and Cheney--with this Congress--is really laughable. Sad, but true.

[Usrename]

89. I understand the argument you are making.

I don't agree that dooming their constituents (and the world) to a future of fascist rule in America is a noble purpose.

And getting rid of Cheney and Bush would be a very short exercise, if were not for the Democratic party leadership. There are too many of those (like Lieberman, who has now been exposed) that adore the whole Bush doctrine, from tax-cuts for the rich, to the war in Iraq.

It would not take long to impeach Cheney, and I'm not arguing that it would not be dangerous. But it would be no more dangerous than allowing him to remain in office.

[Blue_Roses]

92. while I respect your opinion

on how dangerous it is to leave Cheney in office, I know how difficult it would be to impeach. For god's sake, Libbey was "commuted" and he WAS convicted.

[Usrename]

95. Out of curiosity, would there be any limits you would put on them?

Is any and all behavior by these monsters to be excused, only because it might be difficult or time-consuming to try and remove them?

What if they do nuke Iran? Is that a reason to remove them? Do we wait until they do something like that?

It will be too late by then, you do know that, don't you? When a world war is in full-swing, it is definitely too late.

[Blue_Roses]

99. The limits that I would put on them have much more

meaning to me since I live in the state of Texas and know first hand what I--WE--are dealing with.

Limits? Let's just say, I was one of the few who supported and voted for Gore in 2000 and watched in horror that night when Florida went back in the "undeclared" category. Believe me, it ain't about limits with this bunch. We're talking waaaaaaaaaaay past that.

Sometimes you just have to read between the lines.

There is more than one way to skin a skunk.

[Virginia Dare]

107. That's just it, it doesn't matter what limits we put on them..

our limits were met and exceeded years ago. The question is, what limits will their own party put on them? This can't be a partisan political fight, like it was with Clinton. It's got to be like Watergate, where Nixon's own party said enough is enough. We're not at that point yet, and the Democrats recognize that.

[Usrename]

118. I think Watergate is very instructive on this.

The way I recall it, and I was one who was completely shocked when Nixon resigned, it took years to get the public behind impeachment of Nixon.

People were always willing to concede that Nixon had misused his authority, even before he was reelected. They just thought that it was no big deal, they assumed that every president did this stuff. The idea that "it isn't illegal if the president does it" had a lot of traction, just like it does today.

It has taken years, again, to drive Dubya's ratings into the dirt. The public is slow to come along, but eventually they get it. Now the impediment is the Democratic party leadership. They are the ones standing in the way, willfully opposing impeachment.

The other thing that is instructive about Watergate is the pardon power. The single exception to the pardon power in the Constitution is is cases of impeachment. This is the primary reason that impeachment is a better course than just waiting out their term.

[Virginia Dare]

179. How do you figure?

What Republicans in the House or Senate have called for Bush or Cheney's impeachment? None, that I know of. Many Republicans were calling for Nixon's impeachment by the time the articles were drawn up. You're right, it did take a while though.

[pnwmom]

109. You don't understand that impeachment won't "get rid" of Bush/Cheney.

Only conviction will, and we can't do that without the cooperation of Republicans in the Senate.

[Usrename]

121. Cheney would be convicted, without any doubt.

Who do you think would try to rescue him when he sits in single-digits in the polls?

Do you think the 15 Republican Senators that are up for reelection in 2008 would stand beside him.

Do you really think they have what it takes to do that?

That's funny, when you really think about it. They'd hurl him under the bus before the articles could be drawn up.

[eridani]

166. How do you help people when Bush vetoes everything? n/t

[Phredicles]

69. Clinton never had a 71% disapproval rating. By contrast, those who vote to acquit

Bush will be exposed in the public view as complicit in his crimes.

On the other hand, if the Democrats give these monsters a pass, they will lose any respect the voters had for them.

[Virginia Dare]

98. Nobody has ever said Bush would get a pass...n/t

[Usrename]

104. Well that's sort of the definition of the phrase, isn't it?

Refusing to impeach, when we all know their crimes warrant it is, "giving them a pass."

[Virginia Dare]

115. No, I don't think so..

it's an acknowledgement that Impeachment isn't something that could be successfully achieved at this point. Nobody ever said, okay Bush, do what you want, we won't try to stop you.

Impeachment is not intended to be used as a partisan political tool the way the Republicans used it against Clinton. If the Democrats are going to use Impeachment against Bush, they will have to do it with Republican support, otherwise it will become useless and meaningless.

[Usrename]

123. If the only Constitutional method to stop them is impeachment...

and you take that off the table, then, yes, you have told them "we won't try to stop you."

[JVS]

141. The way you describe is using it as a partisan tool.

The "we don't want to risk it" mentality is watching out for the party. The "crimes have been commited that justify impeachment, so I will do it" mentality is watching out for the country

[Virginia Dare]

178. If the Republicans won't support it, then

it IS a partisan action. There is no other way to describe it. By not supporting impeachment, it is the Republicans who are watching out for only the party, not the Democrats.

[Phredicles]

106. How is Bush NOT getting a pass? How is he to be held accountable for

his many, egregious crimes, if there is to be no impeachment?

[Virginia Dare]

110. How was Nixon ever held accountable

for his egregious crimes? Eventually if he loses enough Repuke support, a deal will be cut, he'll resign, he'll be pardoned, you know the drill. I don't hold out much hope that Bush will ever be held truly accountable.

[Phredicles]

113. Everyone knows Nixon resigned in disgrace. Nixon knew it, too;

but I can't see Decider Guy resigning, even if his party tries to cut a deal behind his back.

I share your pessimism about Bush being held accountable in any real sense. But what's truly galling to me is how few people who ought to know better will even try to do so.

[pnwmom]

111. Less than half of the public wants him impeached now, whether they

approve of him or not. That's the more important number.

That, and the fact that we aren't even close to having 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict.

[Phredicles]

116. BARELY less than half. This is not the overwhelming rejection that

we saw in Clinton's case.

I maintain that impeachment of such a widely reviled president, even without a conviction, helps us much better that the present strategy of hoping the criminals go away in a nice orderly fashion when their time is up. The rep our party needs to shake off is for wussiness, not "partisanship".

[JVS]

142. But even less than that oppose him being impeached.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Clinton was a good president, who was unjustly impeached.

That's why he ended up more popular at the end of his term.

Not impeaching trivializes the process.

[WinkyDink]

127. 1974. Check it out.

[Mojorabbit]

174. You just gave me a thought though

I keep reading how bush is so worried and obsessed with his legacy. I don't think he would want impeachment in the history books even if he is not convicted.

[rateyes]

41. I usually agree with you Will, but not this time....

the Constitution is too important. If we don't hold these bastards to account, we might as well have a Republican Congress. What have we gotten since the Dems took over? A badly needed, yet very inadequate minimum wage that was attached to the blank check we gave Bush to keep his war going. Beyond that---nothing. And, it won't be any different in '09, even if we get the executive branch back.

[LSK]

44. Hi Palm Frond, didnt you know reason was banned from here 3 months ago

**Also you might want to edit 271+ to 217+**

[RFKJr4PRES]

49. Conyers LIED to all of US

I don't get how anyone can defend that?

He said he would pursue impeachment if we got the Dems in office. We got the Dems in office, he then said the election was enough accountability.

When we the people said 'no it's not, Impeach him!' just four days ago he said he would if he had three more Representatives. Now yesterday he said wait for another election when Bush will be gone.

Are some at Democratic Underground experiencing cognitive dissonance?

The point of Impeachment is not whether we have the votes. As Conyers said we must vote out the enablers. He and the other good Democrats must pursue Impeachment so we can see who it is that is enabling Bush and ignoring their oath of office to defend the Constitution. Conyers has now joined the ranks of enablers, and by his own words, should be voted out of office.

(I posted this in your other thread and am curious as to your explanation)

[creeksneakers2]

165. Conyers isn't dishonest

David Swanson who reports on Conyers gets things wrong. Swanson pulled a quote from Conyers before the election. Conyers only promised that he'd investigate. He didn't promise he'd impeach.

Swanson also came out with the story that if he had three more votes Conyers would impeach. We can all see how true that story turned out to be.

Who wasn't telling the truth?

Swanson sent out an E-mail accusing Conyers of saying impeachment was off the table at an appearance on This Week with George Stephanopolus. The tape is up at the ABC site. Conyers only said that he had not put impeachment on the table in a prior remark. Swanson got that one wrong.

The three more votes story sounded absurd to begin with. I'm pretty sure Conyers isn't the one who said something that isn't true.

[Gman]

50. I said pretty much the same thing here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Gman/47

Many listen and understand. Many don't want to listen and/or don't like what they would understand if they were to accept the reality of impeachment.

I reiterate, impeachment is not punishment, impeachment is not justice. Justice will be served when this bunch is indicted post-January 2009, tried and imprisoned and then turned over to the ICC to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the likely event of mass pardons, turn them over to the ICC where their pardons have no effect.

[AndyA]

53. And so the options are?

1. Go about "more important" legislation, despite the fact that the Republicans are blocking everything, and Bush has veto powers that he will use against the Dems.
(Bush/Cheney get away with it, and set a precedent for future abuse.)

2. Say it isn't going to happen because there aren't enough votes. Ignoring, of course, that pressure will be on the GOP to flip the closer the elections come.
(Bush/Cheney get away with it, and set a precedent for future abuse.)

3. Ignore it and it will eventually go away.
(Bush/Cheney get away with it, and set a precedent for future abuse.)

Whatever happened to just doing something because it's the right thing to do? All of these people took an oath of office. Are they personally fulfilling that oath?

Is overlooking a crime acceptable just because it's the President?

None of them are worth two cents if this is the best they can do. And they are very much deserving of the criticism and their low poll numbers.

[GeorgeGist]

55. I get it ...

pragmatism is more important than principle and Palm Frond is better than Poor Fool. Flight to Fiji from $748 at www.Expedia.com. Getting there is half the fun.

[defendandprotect]

58. Look -- this is the equivalent of WATERGATE . .. PLUS . . . Why wouldn't we have impeachment -- ???!

[KoKo]

63. According to John Dean....and some of us who were around then...Worse than Watergate!

FAR WORSE!

[Virginia Dare]

88. Where's our John Dean?

Where's our Washington Post? Where's our deep throat?

[Virginia Dare]

60. What will cause the most damage to the Republican Party?

leaving Bush in there, or impeaching him? I say leave him in there, make the Republicans keep justifying his insanity and criminal behavior. Once we get the White House back, bring all of them up on criminal charges and frog march them off to the Hague.

[defendandprotect]

76. What will cause the most damage to our Constitution, nation, our soldiers -- Iraq -- our Treasury?

IMO, it would be leaving these maniacs in the WH for another 1 1/2 years -- !!!!

Maybe we'll be in Iran or Pakistan by then -- !!!!

[Virginia Dare]

86. You'd just be replacing these maniacs with more maniacs..

you'd have to impeach Cheney first, then Bush. Who steps in to fill the void, what Repuke would you trust to clean this mess up?

The damage has been done, impeachment isn't going to magically make all of those things disappear, or make every thing better just because. We've got to concentrate on getting the White House back and then we can begin to mend the damage.

[Poiuyt]

62. If what you're saying is true, then we might as well remove Impeachment from the Constitution

because what you have said is never going to change.

I think that impeaching Bush and Cheney is going to have to be a bottom up campaign, as opposed to the Clinton impeachment, which was a top down campaign. If we all keep telling our Representatives how important it is to impeach these guys, then they will in turn pass the word up to Conyers and Pelosi that their constituents are screaming. It has to come from we the people.

[rateyes]

72. At if we are ignored...we make our voices heard at the ballot box.

No more free passes because you have a (D) by your name. That's what got us my DINO Rep. Jim Marshall. That's what gave us Zig-Zag Zell Miller. What the hell does it really matter if a Republican is elected to serve in Marshall's seat....a Republican already serves in Marshall's seat! To be honest, I don't give a tinker's damn which party is in the majority, if either way, NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED!

I think there are those here who think that we pro-impeachment people just want to impeach because we're still smarting over 2000. It's a lot more serious than that.

[mentalsolstice]

66. Finally, some realism!

Nobody more than myself wants to see these criminals brought to justice. I get sick at the thought of BushCo riding off into the sunset in Jan. 2009, without a thought of all of the damage and suffering they have wrought. However, after years in the legal profession, I've learned the difference between what is right and what is possible. Unfortunately, those of us who are cursed to be realists cannot escape to fantasy lands. We suffer more than most, as we know what is right and true, but we also know what is possible...and we live daily with the heartache and burden of having such knowledge.

[rateyes]

75. Why is it not possible for the majority in the House

of Representatives to vote to uphold the Constitution? What's unrealistic about that? Is that not possible? We know it's right...but, why isn't it possible?

[mentalsolstice]

81. 1 + 1

=2, but not necessarily 218. Pelosi and Conyers know the votes aren't there...and even if they were, it's dead when the articles go to the senate.

[rateyes]

114. You did not answer my question...

you told me we don't have the votes. I'm asking you why it isn't POSSIBLE to get the votes.

[Vanje]

120. We dont have the votes.

And we wont get the votes..
UNLESS dem leaders in congress start talking about impeachment.

When Pelosi says "impeachment is off the table", uncommitted congress meembers are hardly going to get behind impeachment.

I want Conyers , Pelosi and all to put it on the table and start talking it up.
Get the votes!

[rateyes]

129. I'm with you. That's why I'm still waiting on the answer to

my question. I think it IS possible, and I'm tired of being told to shut up. I've held my tongue long enough.

[mentalsolstice]

156. Nobody is telling you to shut up

Least of all myself. Please, continue discussing it, and pushing for it...I'm just saying we need to be realistic and pragmatic toward the issue. Watergate and Monica are going to look like walks in the park compared to this. Even though * can't claim executive privilege, their lawyers will stall the process at every opportunity by screaming national security.

I just want everyone to understand it's not as easy as it looks and crucifying Pelosi, et al., isn't helping matters any. It's going to be a long rough road to investigate, and get the numbers to add up to something meaningful (particularly in the Senate). I don't want anyone to shut up, or give up...just asking for a small measure of pragmatism here.

[mmonk]

68. We have to try and get what we want.

But all in all, a nice post Palm.;-)

[havocmom]

70. Yes, but we have to know the dif between getting a burger our way in 60 seconds

and impeaching people with a governing body that moves slowly.

[mmonk]

71. If you don't move the roadblocks quick enough,

you don't arrive at your destination on time.

[havocmom]

82. It still takes the manpower, and they don't have the numbers yet.

OUR job is to keep pressure on the GOP reps so they will buck bush.

[mmonk]

85. Since we have a pretty big advantage in the House

where we need only a simple majority, I would stay on our party to get it going.

[Yukari Yakumo]

131. What majority?

If the Blue Dogs turn against Impeachment, it will fail. Period. And they will unless the case is absolutely rock solid and someone found the proverbial smoking gun.

[havocmom]

171. The work in the House is not gonna get bush/cheney removed

We don't have the numbers. What is so damned hard to understand?

House impeaches, which is basically just like a grand jury indictment. Impeach does NOT = REMOVE

Senate is where that happens. Trial then verdict. That is where the removal from office happens
IF YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS! Which we don't!

:banghead:

[Dollface]

73. John Conyers is a good man. Let's help him move to impeachment proceedings by raising hell

with our own senators and representatives no matter what party they're in. Conyers will do it if we can get him enough support. When you write/email to demand impeachment be sure to Cc: Conyers and Pelosi and anyone else who you think needs it.

[incapsulated]

74. Stop posting shit I agree with

It makes me feel uncomfortable.

:P

[DinahMoeHum]

84. Agreed, Will. Folks, we can't play allies like enemies

and we can't play Democrats like Republicans.

You wanna protest? Do it in front of REPUBLICAN offices for crying out loud. THEY are the ones obstructing and moving the goal posts, not Conyers.

:kick:

[Phredicles]

87. I respect your work a lot, Mr. Pitt. However,

this is basically two of the common anti-impeachment arguments: We need to concentrate on getting things done, and it's all about the 2008 elections.

And the same objections apply: What will "get done", in the sense of being passed into law, even without impeachment? Christ, this "president" is vetoing health care for children and the removal mercury from vaccines.

And I still have a hard time buying that the public will reward a grand strategy of pragmatic gutlessness with the big majorities people here are anticipating.

If impeaching a Caligulesque monster truly is impossible, then what the hell country is this, anyway? And what the hell kind of political party is it that accepts such an odious "reality" with equanimity?

[greatauntoftriplets]

90. You right-wing troll!!!

;)

I was called something like that the other day while trying to make a point similar to yours. Great post and thanks for a rare breath of reality in GD.

[PeaceNikki]

155. I was called

"Karl Rove's butt whore".

:o

[greatauntoftriplets]

157. That is so wrong on so many levels....

Was it because you injected some reality into a thread? That's dangerous, you know.

[PeaceNikki]

159. I was terrible...

I defended my Senator, Russ Feingold, when someone stated that the GOP MUST have videotape of him with teenaged hookers - as that's the only explanation for his being a "spineless jellyfish" for not moving to impeach RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

He thought that made me a freeper. Supporting one of the most liberal Dems - is that a common trait among freepers these days? :shrug:

[greatauntoftriplets]

168. It appears that way.....

God help me, I am an Illinoisian who is an Obama supporter....

:hide:

I love Russ Feingold, BTW. Don't tell anyone.

DU is unreal these days. I thought the 2004 primary wars were bad, but.... :scared:

[eyesroll]

169. I prefer to think his being a Senator is why he's not moving to impeach RIGHT FUCKING NOW (or ever).

I think I've typed the words "Senators don't impeach" about 100000 times. Deleted most of 'em....didn't feel like arguing on that many threads.

[warren pease]

93. I disagree, and here's why...

I doubt I could summarize the situation better than this... the OP from a thread started by horse with no name:


This is what impeachment hearings in the House means...

Regardless of CURRENT Senate support.

Paraphrasing John Dean.

Impeachment is valuable BECAUSE Bush CANNOT assert executive privilege over ANY ITEMS needed in the investigation AGAINST HIM.
All the records regarding the energy policy, the Plame leak, etc...everything loses its cover and becomes property of the investigating body (The House). This also means that all the people that REFUSE to acknowledge the subpoenas...Rove, Rice, Miers, etc. HAVE to testify in an impeachment hearing and there is NO getting around that.

The media can ignore Congressional hearings. The media can ignore parliamentary procedure BUT the media CANNOT ignore an impeachment hearing.

So, if you think pulling the media cover and executive privilege cover off of this administration wouldn't net the support in the Senate (because it sure as hell would get the attention of the people who aren't being told exactly what is going on)...then I am sorry that you simply do not understand the reason we NEED impeachment proceedings.


Full thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1411203&mesg_id=1411203


Try as I might, I just can't accept that occasionally, like now, congress can't respond to a truly overarching issue that makes the rest of the petty squabbling inconsequential in comparison. I submit that issue is impeachment and immediate removal of Bush and Cheney -- just for starters -- in an effort to thwart them before they can start a war with Iran, launch their wet dream of a fascist dictatorship at home and further dishonor the international reputation of this country and its people. What could possibly be more urgent than that?


wp

[creeksneakers2]

167. I don't agree with Dean about executive privilege

Bush could still claim executive privilege over information requested by an impeachment probe. The claim would end up in court. There, Bush would be unlikely to prevail. But just starting impeachment doesn't give Democrats automatic keys to every piece of information in the executive branch.

[warren pease]

182. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Dean...

The issue I've been trying to chase down is whether, in fact, precedent and case law have established the rules Dean claims regarding privilege, compelling testimony and so forth. So far, not much luck.

Only cite I could find is from an article in Slate by Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer and author of "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle Over the Constitution and Democracy." He writes:

"...suspicion has arisen that the White House intended to manipulate U.S. attorneys in some instances to harass Democrats with contrived voting fraud prosecutions or otherwise. The committees' interest in exposing misuse of the president's power to appoint and remove executive officials is compelling. As Justice Louis Brandeis* observed, sunshine is the best disinfectant. The congressional judiciary committees are further legitimately investigating whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other Department of Justice officials committed perjury or endeavored to obstruct Congress' investigation by misrepresenting White House involvement in the decisions to remove the U.S. attorneys.

"The Supreme Court, in the 1957 case Watkins v. United States, explained that Congress enjoys the power to "inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration, or inefficiencies" in the executive branch, including crimes. President Bush's assertion of executive privilege to stymie the committees' well-founded investigations is wildly misplaced.


Full text here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2170247/nav/tap3


Interesting thing is that, since BushCo has pretty much killed due process and habeas corpus, they don't really have a legal basis for claims of privilege, or the presumption of innocence for that matter. Watch how quickly they draw lines between what applies to them and what applies to the peasantry. Can't wait to watch Gonzales whine his way through the legal muck, reedy little voice and weasel weenie demeanor coating him like humidity in a D.C. July.


wp

[Grandrose]

96. Thank You....Brilliant post!

Finally.....context does matter!:toast: :applause: :kick:

[OzarkDem]

108. Baloney

This is what these people are paid to do. The lobbyists don't care how hard their staffers work or how much of a headache it is for the member. Yet the Congressman will jump through any hoop for a campaign donation.

We're the voters, donors and rank & file of the party. If the lobbyists can do it, we can too.

Keep in mind, whatever time you free up for Conyers and his staff, it will be immediately consumed by lobbyists. Believe it.

[leftofthedial]

112. Yo, Palm Frond

1. tell your boy to fucking retire if he's too old to do his job

2. are you really arguing that playing politics within the closed little elite community of the House is more important than doing one's duty to one's country? explain Conyers' and the "democrats'" mythical other "agenda" (they aren't passing shit if you haven't noticed) to the families of the next thousand to die in America's illegal occupation of Iraq.

3. do you really believe the "democrats" would lose the majority in 2008 BECAUSE they pursued impeachment?

Where is the DLC's kool aid stand?

[AntiFascist]

117. What's this about not retreating?

Once again, the war in Iraq costs $100s of billions to maintain. As long as we are waging war, Democrats ultimately have to finance it or else we are accused of not supporting the troops. How many Democratic programs can that kind of money finance??

Impeachment proceedings should bring to light the illegal mechanisms that got is into war and (maybe) the types of games that are being played to keep us in war. This might eventually leave a bad taste in our mouths so people won't be so eager to wage war in the future, freeing $100s billions and allowing Democrats more FREEDOM to pursue their programs, or on the Republican side, maybe even lower taxes.

[WinkyDink]

122. Nixon had won in a landslide. I wonder how the Congressional Republicans found their

way to ImpeachmentLand.

[Alexander]

125. Disagree with you about Feingold...

"Think Feingold. He mostly runs alone and throws weight. That is more rare than Halley's Comet in the House. The one who runs alone in that moveable feast will be going home in two years broke and sure of defeat because he passed nothing to help his district."

Feingold has not only remained in office since his first election in 1992, he outperformed John Kerry in Wisconsin in 2004.

He's not going to be defeated any time soon.

[MasonJar]

128. Logic is good and so is pragmatism, but this is our country we are

talking about...our Constitution. We, the people, have two "leaders" who are not only nuts but also arrogant and incompetent. The trifecta! They do irreparable harm daily and 18 months is a long time. Why should they get to start new wars (Iran immediately pops to mind), kill more Iraqis (100+ a day now,) spy on more citizens, disobey more laws, refuse steps to dispatch global warming, refuse to allow stem cell research, ruin more lives, destroy our military and its families, mangle the world and its view of us, destroy our economy and all the other etcs.? Why should we stand by one more day and watch an incurious "moran" make himself and all of us buffoons?

[Marrah_G]

132. I thought reason and logic aren't allowed here?

Just emotional out-bursts, cheer leading and Democrat bashing.

(doh- half the thread is written by "ignored")

[lapislzi]

134. Oh, I think this is called POLITICS

I've heard of this.

I hear Fiji's lovely at this time of year. Bring a snorkel and some flippers. Watch out for falling coconuts. :P

[formercia]

136. You can always become one of the 'Mole People'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_People

They probably have a chapter in DC.

[puebloknot]

138. What happened to your Stalingrad moment?

[JVS]

143. "Sir, I knew Josef Stalin, and you are no Stalin"

Nahhh, doesn't quite work.

I brought that other thread back up though.

[Malikshah]

139. "Drop a thought"? What an unfortunate choice of wording.

Some may link the wording to, say, dropping a few friends off at the pool.

The Beltway Speak does get a bit old at times. The old "Chess Game" "More of the Same" Game.

Trying to see where past impeachments have effectively "nuked the House"

We're back to 2003-2004 all over again.

Lyrics from the Judas Priest song, United, (British Steel, 1980) always come to mind in times like these. :)



Look around
They're moving in
Hold your ground
When they begin

We can do it
We can do it and if they wanna they can try
But they'll never get near
Then they can get out of here

Gonna keep on driving
Never stop

United, united, united we stand
United we never shall fall
United, united, united we stand
United we stand one and all

So keep it up
Don't give in
Make a stand
We're gonna win

We can do it
We can do it and if they wanna they can try
But they'll never get near
Then they can get out of here

Gonna keep on driving
Never stop

United, united, united we stand
United we never shall fall
United, united, united we stand
United we stand one and all

So keep it up

United, united, united we stand
United we never shall fall
United, united, united we stand
United we stand one and all

United, united, united we stand
United we never shall fall
United, united, united we stand
United we stand one and all

United, united, united we stand
United we never shall fall
United, united, united we stand
United we stand one and all

[mzmolly]

146. Conyers will impeach, but not TODAY, and that WAS the outrageous demand by some as of late.

Fiji, sounds so lovely, especially at present.

[OneBlueSky]

152. time is running out for Conyers and the rest of Congress . . .

in the past several months, Bush has issued a series of Executive Orders which, if enacted, would effectively make him dictator and make Congress irrelevant . . . he didn't issue these orders to benefit some future president . . .

if Congress doesn't act -- and soon -- they may not be able to act at all . . . and we'll all be risking trips to re-education camps if we dare to express our opinions of the new dictatorship . . .

[mzmolly]

154. Indeed, time is running out.

What's to prevent such enactment if Bush is impeached however?

[liberalnurse]

149. Thank You Will.......

I have tried to communicate such a message here....I know your threads get the necessary attention to at least evoke thought.

[CitizenLeft]

150. thank you.

Well said.

[bread_and_roses]

158. Ray McGovern on John Conyers

at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/24/2736/

I quoted a portion of Dr. King’s famous address at Riverside Church almost 40 years ago:

“We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak….there is such a thing as being too late….Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity….Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: ‘Too late.’”

I used that quote in a letter I left with Conyers’ aides on Monday, in which I tried to express why my colleagues in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity feel it is URGENT to find some way to apply the Constitution to restrain a run-away Executive.

I don't think Ray McGovern was born yesterday. These are not normal times, and I am old enough to remember Kennedy's Presidency. All presidents, D and R, in my view, have committed grave abuses of their power at the least, unconstitutional violations of our civil liberties, and war crimes and crimes against humanity at the worst. The difference is, they have done, or tried to do so, secretly.

These madman openly proclaim what they are doing, and openly state that they piss on the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, International Law. They have all but proclaimed that miserable little psychopath occupying the WH "Supreme Leader."

I have no faith at all in Democrats doing the right thing unless forced to by an outcry from the citizenry. As far as I am concerned they are the Party allowed to win when the powers that be need to quiet the rabble by throwing them a few more scraps and bones. I only support and work for Democrats - which I do, nearly year 'round, one way or another - because I believe in democracy and non-violence and have faith in the American people "getting it" eventually. We are only slow, I think, because we are so constantly mis-and under-informed.

But even I, with my low expectations of those in office, find myself bewildered these past six years and even now by the feeble response of the "opposition" Party. Perhaps there is a law or rule that prohibited Conyers et al from renting a hotel room with room for the Press in which to hold their hearings? If not, why didn't they?

I've admired Conyers, without investing him in sainthood, but I am disappointed now.

These are not normal times, Congressman Conyers. We either show that we will make every attempt to protect the Constitution, the separation of powers, the rule of Law, or we lose them. Does anyone think that the next President, of whatever Party, will not pick and choose his/her "precedents" for Executive power if we don't? The temptation would be too much for any but a saint.

Others on this board have made the case for impeachment, I don't think that I have to reiterate it, but all too many seem to assume that there is no danger - even with no impeachment - as long as the next President is a D. I don't think history bears out the inevitability of such a prediction. Quite the opposite.

[snot]

175. AGREED. Also,

none of this business about being concerned about keeping one's job makes any sense in light of the Dems' inaction on election reform.

[tomp]

185. agree with your post and above response. will pitt...

...and the dems are playing by the "normal" rules. so utterly predicatable. so wrong. so dangerous.

[proud patriot]

160. Will

:yourock:

[SeattleGirl]

163. Good points, Will. Good points.

I, too, am absolutely for impeachment, but I can see why it may be "off the table".

At least they are looking into some of the thuggery, at least they are holding hearings, at least they are trying to shine light into the dark cesspool that is the Bush administration.

I know for me, a lot of my frustration is that the Bushies have gotten away with so much, for so long, with the complicity of the former Rethug majority, and sometimes I just want to scream and throw things. I feel powerless about so much of this crap, and I'm sure many other people feel the same way. We've suffered through so much, for so long, we just want something to happen, and happen NOW, damnit!

But as I said, you make very good points in your post, and they make a lot of sense.

[WillyT]

170. Hey Will, These Things You Speak Of: (jobs, pay, health, environment, jobs, he's from Detroit, jobs)

Exactly when will the Republicans let us pass these things?

From what I've been reading, the Republican plan is to block all legislation at the Senate level, with a presidential veto as back-up. Make the Dems look like a "do-nothing" congress and then run against them on that in 2008.

If this is true, then what do you suggest we do to combat the "wuss factor" meme that is being developed and will definitely be trotted out against us in the '08 campaign?

Seems to me that repeating, "It's the Republican's fault!" over and over for the next year and change ain't gonna exactly inspire the electorate, ya know???

:shrug:

[pinto]

172. Good points.

[Hekate]

176. Why, Will, are you confusing these poor hysterics with reason and reality?

Thank you.
Yours for reason and reality,
Hekate

PS: I'm still sending several key Representatives a postcard with a picture of a plate and flatware, with the message: Impeach. Just so they know I care.

[smiley_glad_hands]

177. K & R. eom

[bigtree]

180. I love the accessible Will Pitt on this thread, and on the flurry of threads produced yesterday

well done

[Time for change]

181. This doesn't fully compute for me

First I want to repeat that none of this means that I don't have a great deal of respect for John Conyers. I can disagree with people on particular issues and still have a lot of respect for them. But I remain mystified over the apparent lack of enthusiasm for impeachment by Conyers and many others, such as Feingold to mention one.

This is why the reasons you gave don't fully compute for me:

First, when Conyers conducted his wonderful investigation, "The Constitution in Crisis", while Dems were in the minority, he was obviously (IMO) all fired up about getting rid of those guys. And he did have this to say about it:

The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people … The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence that federal criminal laws have been violated… The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

Conyers must have, at that time, realized that there were millions of Americans who fully believed that he would proceed with impeachment to the best of his ability the Dems came into the majority. And certainly he was also aware of all the issues that you bring up in your post about how impeachment could interfere with other issues.

So all that leads me to believe that he must have had a close to 180 degree change of mind on the subject. Something must have intervened, probably that we are unaware of, to cause that change of mind, IMO.

Secondly, many or most people fully believe that impeachment should take much less than the year you note in your post -- given the great amount of evidence already accumulated.

Thirdly, didn't the same issues that you bring up exist when the attempt was made to impeach Nixon? And the evidence against Bush is much more substantial than the evidence agaisnt Nixon. So what is the difference?

With respect to not having the 67 votes: I just cannot see why 67 votes would be needed BEFORE impeachment hearings begin. Impeachment hearings will get a great amount of coverage, and I fully expect that once the American people are exposed to them their outrage will rise to the level that one of two things will happen:
1) The 67 votes will materialize; or
2) Republican Senators who vote against conviction will be putting their seats in serious jeopardy.
Either way we win.

Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the American people won't be outraged over the numerous crimes of the Bush administration. If that's the case then democracy in this country is finished anyhow. Either way, we have to try. And I feel confident that the John Conyers of 2006 pre-election knew that. So what intervened between then and now that we don't know about?

As far as him not being as spry as he once was, because of his age -- I'm getting up in years myself, and I understand that. But he was plenty spry in 2005 and 2006 -- enough to conduct a great investigation and report of the Bush administration crimes. It's hard for me to believe that he lost that much energy between then and now -- especially with the issues now standing before us.

[tomp]

186. sorry, time for change, but will pitt ...

.. has already cornered the market on logic and reason. you are just yelling at the wall.

[mimitabby]

183. thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

i do appreciate it, even if i am still skeptical.

and i hope, i hope, i hope you're right.