Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conyers Explains Why He Hasn't Impeached

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:38 AM
Original message
Conyers Explains Why He Hasn't Impeached
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has released a lengthy new report that updates his previous report originally released in 2005 documenting Bush and Cheney's crimes and impeachable offenses. The new report recommends that the Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel, even while making other recommendations that could delay or prevent prosecutions (including creating a bipartisan commission to spend a year and a half looking at the crimes and potentially immunizing criminals). The report includes 47 recommendations, some better than others, and has a tendency to ask the next president to ignore bad laws while offering that Congress might pass better laws "if necessary." The report takes up some new topics not addressed in the old one, but largely covers familiar ground, with one glaring exception: it virtually ignores what had previously been a major focus, the war. The lies that launched the war receive a few pages toward the end.

Over the past three years, a great many people have lobbied Conyers to impeach Bush and Cheney. I've worked with him and his staff, been arrested protesting in his office, and everything in between. Conyers includes in his new report a foreword that amounts to a seven-page letter to disappointed impeachment advocates. After listing some of the most serious abuses of power imaginable, Conyers writes:

Many think these acts rise to the level of impeachable conduct. I agree. I have never wavered in my belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nations history, and the more we learn the truer that becomes.


This is new for Conyers to be saying this publicly in a formal report. Just as his new report maintains a pretended uncertainty as to whether crimes have been committed, his past reports and statements have maintained a pretended uncertainty as to whether impeachable offenses had been committed. Given that most of the offenses discussed are statutory crimes and that Conyers now admits to the impeachability of the guilty parties, the new pretense is shaky. But if, years from now, Conyers says that he has never wavered from his belief that Bush and Cheney were criminals, it will be appropriate to point out the novelty. Conyers continues:

Some ardent advocates of impeachment have labeled me a traitor or worse for declining to begin a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee. While I reject that particular criticism, ...


I recall suggesting that Conyers might have "sold-out", after which most of his staff refused to speak to me. I'm sure someone did call him a traitor, and I can't imagine what's worse than that. Perhaps someone said that he was complicit in the death of 1.3 million Iraqis. That's pretty bad. But that charge would not be baseless. We had a situation in which a majority of Americans wanted impeachment, a majority of Conyers' constituents (including his wife) wanted impeachment, 100 cities passed resolutions demanding impeachment, impeachment resolutions were introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the chairman of that committee believed the offenses were "among the most impeachable in our nation's history," the charges included the launching of the war on Iraq, and the chairman refused to act. It's possible that his actions would have failed in the House or the Senate. It's possible that his actions, whether failing or succeeding, would have had some other negative consequence. But the fact was that he refused to try, and as many of us read the Constitution that was a failure of duty.

The frustration citizens felt with Chairman Conyers was amplified by the fact that he had a book in the bookstores (the print edition of his first report) that said on the top of the back cover "The Foundation for Possible Articles of Impeachment," and a little further down had this quote "Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man." The foreword to the book, by Liz Holtzman, said "Impeaching President Bush for lying to get us into a war will not only protect us from him, but also send an unmistakable message to future presidents: never again." And yet, when we asked Conyers' staff about impeachment, they couldn't be bothered. They were too busy writing the second book (the new report), at taxpayer expense.

And it wasn't just the book. In 2005 Conyers introduced a bill to create a preliminary investigation into impeachment. Throughout the past three years, Conyers has spoken at rallies and events, leading crowds to believe he favored impeachment just as clearly as Bush led crowds to believe Saddam Hussein destroyed the World Trade Center. As the 110th Congress began in January 2007, Conyers addressed a huge crowd on the national mall and shouted "We can fire him!" about Bush, leading to a chant of "Impeach Bush!" Then Conyers told a reporter that what he'd meant was that if we waited until 2009, Bush would complete his term. This was not an isolated incident, but an example of what came to be a pattern in public events in Detroit and elsewhere at which Conyers suggested he was for impeachment and then assured reporters he was not. Perhaps that behavior doesn't justify shouts of "Traitor!" but it does explain them.

Conyers continues:

... I want to make clear how much I respect those who have given so much time and energy to the cause of fighting for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. While we may not agree on the best path forward, I know they are acting on the basis of our shared love of this country. These citizens are not fringe radicals, and they are obviously not motivated simply by personal feelings about President Bush, however strong those feelings may be at times. They are individuals who care deeply about our Constitution and our Nation, and who have stood up to fight for the democracy they love, often at great personal cost. Our country was founded, and our democracy has long been nurtured, by people willing to take such risks, and we should honor their vigilance and courage. However, as I have said, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney have earned the dishonorable eligibility to be impeached, I do not believe that would have been the appropriate step at this time in our history, and I would like again to briefly explain why that is the case.


Conyers has explained this before, many times. He's told us that Fox News would attack him if he moved on impeachment, especially if he failed. He's told us he was guaranteed to fail. He's told us it would be bad for the presidential election. But he hasn't put it into a book before, so this is worth considering:

Contrary to assertions by some advocates, the predecessor to this Report the Judiciary Committee then-Minority staff's "Constitution in Crisis" did not call for impeachment. Rather, it concluded that there was substantial evidence of impeachable misconduct and that there should be a full investigation by a select Committee armed with subpoena power.


That's true of the report, but not -- as I've mentioned -- of the book's cover and foreword. While Nancy Pelosi swore she would never impeach in May 2006 in response to a statement from the Republican National Committee, Conyers continued to hedge and fudge and prevaricate enough that a great many people worked hard to elect Democrats they disliked to Congress, in hopes that Conyers would become chair of the Judiciary Committee and impeach. Polls showed Americans believing that a Democratic majority would impeach. The RNC trumpeted this myth. And voters put in 30 new Democrats and not a single new Republican.

Conyers goes on:

Prior to the 2006 elections, when I saw that my views on impeachment were being misstated by friends and foes alike, I set the record straight in an essay published in The Washington Post titled "No Rush to Impeachment:" The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner. It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those "revolutionaries," it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate. So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader. The committee's job would be to obtain answers finally. At the end of the process, if and only if the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.


Conyers was very clear. As I mentioned above, he did NOT communicate his "belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nation's history." He pretended not to know it. And yet, he had produced a report that laid out indisputable evidence of quintessentially impeachable offenses, and his staff was saying they wanted to get there one step at a time. We thought the "preliminary investigation" nonsense was a step on the way to impeachment, a step taken by a ranking member lacking the power of a chairmanship.

Conyers continues:

Nonetheless, I have been accused of "violating my oath of office" by "playing politics" with impeachment, and I have been criticized for saying that I have the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other. I would suggest that this argument ignores the text and history of the Constitution. There is nothing mandatory about using the power to impeach when wrongful conduct is shown, and the decision whether or not to impeach was always intended to be subject to the politics at the time. We live in a democracy, after all.


Conyers knows that we do not live in even an ideal democratic republic, but one corrupted by money, parties, and a highly damaging communications system. In a democracy, we would have simply voted for impeachment and had it, leaving out the middle man. This is not the place to talk about democracy.

Thus, in Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as "those... which proceed from the misconduct of public men... which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL..." (Caps in original.) To address these "political" offenses, the Constitutional Convention rejected using either a judicial tribunal (that was the approach of the "Virginia Plan") or a hybrid committee of judicial and political officers (as proposed by Gouverneur Morris and Charles Pinckney), and instead vested the authority in the legislature. As the records of the Convention detail, the Founders made this choice fully aware of the political considerations that would factor into impeachment decisions. The simple fact is, despite the efforts of impeachment advocates, the support and votes have not been there, and could not reasonably be expected to materialize. It takes 218 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to impeach and remove a president from office. The resolution I offered three years ago to simply investigate whether an impeachment inquiry was warranted garnered only 38 cosponsors in the House, and the Democratic Leader of the Senate labeled it "ridiculous." Impeachment resolutions against Vice President Cheney and President Bush offered by my friend and colleague Dennis Kucinich only garnered 27 and 11 House cosponsors, respectively.


But this passes the buck. Of course, other members were to blame. Of course, the party leadership was especially to blame. But a resolution to begin impeaching Alberto Gonzales garnered much more support than these other proposals, enough to force his resignation. Why? Because enough Congress members with enough influence over their colleagues took a stand and set an example and whipped for it. Conyers has tremendous influence with many of his colleagues, many of whom did not sign on for impeachment precisely because he was not on board. Several members of his committee, who would not sign onto impeachment articles because they thought an investigation should come first, publicly lobbied Conyers to start an investigation, and he declined. Had he shown leadership, Congress would have moved in the right direction, and the public would have rallied, which might have been enough to bring the party "leadership" around, which would have meant success.

Conyers has another justification:

Impeachment, if done right, also takes time. When I became Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January of 2007, after twelve years of Republican rule, we had to start much of our oversight from scratch, and against an Administration more dedicated to secrecy and obfuscation than any in our history. Unlike the Nixon impeachment, we did not have the benefit of the bipartisan Ervin Committee or a fearless special prosecutor such as Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski to help lay the groundwork needed to remove a president or vice president from office. During the failed impeachment of President Bill Clinton, many of us derided House Republicans for, in the words of Senator Bob Kerrey, sloppily conducting the inquiry. Without calling a single fact witness, the Republicans essentially rubber-stamped the work of Independent Counsel Ken Starr and forwarded his allegations on to defeat in the Senate. Many advocates would have had me do the same to this President based on newspaper and magazine articles. But that course would have cheapened the impeachment process itself and would not have led to success.


What was Nixon (nearly) impeached for? Anything we know Bush did? Shall we try to recall? Three things. First, he "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice." Check. Second, he "repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies." Check. Third, he "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives." Check. In other words, Nixon was not impeached because he cooperated with lengthy investigations, but because he did not. I agree with Conyers that Bush was even less cooperative, by far. But I disagree that that is a reason not to impeach. I think that is a reason to impeach.

And why must impeachment, then, take years to do? It never has before. It's messy comparing one impeachment to another, as they are complicated and varying processes. But a few things are clear: most impeachment efforts achieve important results quickly, without actually achieving impeachment (think Elliot Spitzer or Alberto Gonzales); it is not uncommon for impeachment efforts to begin late in an administration (think Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman); while preliminary investigations of the sort that have long since been done on Bush and Cheney can be dragged out for months, impeachments tend not to last long; and while Senate trials can be delayed and dragged out for many months, impeachments in the House tend to be short-lived events.

An impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney for an indisputable offense (refusing subpoenas, refusing to enforce contempt citations, rewriting laws with signing statements, openly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, openly authorizing torture, etc.) could take literally one day. Such a thing would not be unprecedented. President Andrew Johnson was impeached three days after the offense for which he was impeached. Senator William Blount was impeached four days after the offense for which he was impeached.

There is no reason impeachment hearings on Cheney or Bush should be limited to the simplest crimes or rushed through at top speed. Public education might benefit from a slower process. My point is only that it is possible to impeach rapidly. A senate trial can also serve as an educational forum. Below are some of the dates I've been able to find on how long past impeachments have taken. A better researcher might add to this collection. In several cases, I have dates for the duration of the Senate trial, but not for the House impeachment, the duration of which may in fact have been negligible (think Rod Blagojevich).

A Senate trial can also be completed quickly, and there is no requirement or precedent for including every obvious impeachable offense. (In fact, there is no precedent for elected officials being guilty of so many obvious impeachable offenses as Bush and Cheney or for the public being so aware of impeachable offenses prior to an impeachment.) The Senate expelled Blount the day after he was impeached. Judge Halsted Ritter's Senate trial took 11 days. Judge John Pickering's trial took nine days. Judge James Peck's trial took three days. Judge West Humphreys' trial took one day.

Two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Johnson was impeached three days after committing the offense for which he was impeached, and prior to drafting articles of impeachment. Within a week, a committee drew up charges, and 11 days after the offense, the House delivered the charges to the Senate. The trial process began the next day, and in under three months it was over.

The House began impeachment procedures for Bill Clinton on October 8, 1998, and impeached him on December 19th. The Senate trial lasted from January 14, 1999, to February 12, 1999.

Of the presidential impeachment movements that did not reach impeachment, the most well-known is that against Richard Nixon. The House began impeachment on May 9, 1974, and passed the first of three articles of impeachment on July 27, 1974. Nixon resigned on August 8th. Of course there were lots of preliminary investigations, but those have long since already been done for Bush and Cheney.

Most impeachments have not been against presidents, but rather judges, cabinet officers, senators. These impeachments seem to take about as long as presidential impeachment do, and offer no support to the myth of long impeachments. In addition, much other business has been accomplished at the same time as these impeachments.

On July 3, 1797, evidence of an offense by Senator William Blount became known. Four days later, the House impeached him and the next day the Senate expelled him.

Evidence of an offense by Judge John Pickering became known on February 4, 1803, and the House voted to impeach him on March 2, 1803. The Senate didn't try him for another year, but spent 9 days on it when it did so.

Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase was impeached in late 1804 (I don't know how long the impeachment took) and 30 days later he was tried in the Senate, which completed the trial on March 1, 1805.

Judge James Peck was impeached on April 24, 1830, a month after the Judiciary Committee recommended it. The Senate took up the trial the following January and spent three days on it.

Judge West H. Humphreys was impeached on May 19, 1862. The Senate tried and convicted him in one day on June 26, 1862.

Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached on March 2, 1876, and the Senate trial was completed on August 1, 1876.

Judge Charles Swayne was impeached on December 14, 1904, and his trial was over on February 27, 1905.

Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached on July 13, 1912, and the Senate trial was over on January 13, 1913.

Judge Harold Louderback resigned before his impeachment went to trial.

Judge Halsted L. Ritter was impeached on March 2, 1936, and the 11-day Senate trial ended on April 17th of the same year.

Judge Harry E. Claiborne was impeached on July 22, 1986, and the trial ended on October 9, 1986.

Then Judge and now Congressman Alcee L. Hastings, was impeached on August 3, 1988, and the Senate trial was over on October 20, 1988.

Judge Walter L. Nixon was impeached on May 10, 1989, and the Senate trial was completed on November 3, 1989.

Conyers goes on:

The final plea was: "Why not try? What do you have to lose?" Impeachments, however, both successful and unsuccessful, have precedential consequences they set standards for future presidential behavior. The House Judiciary Committee's rejection of an article of impeachment against President Nixon for failing to file tax returns, for example, was used as precedent in acquitting President Clinton for impeachment based on personal misdeeds.


Maybe there's a better example to make Conyers' point, because I agree with both of those outcomes. I think a good precedent was set, and that perhaps it was not so much a modern precedent as the original and obvious basis for impeachment. But where Conyers really loses me is in the assumption that failures to impeach do NOT have consequences. Conyers is looking at the small picture. He sees consequences for future impeachments in how impeachments are handled. I see consequences for future wars and abuses of power in whether impeachments are handled.

Conyers continues:

While some of the difficulty in garnering support for impeachment results from fatigue over the recent and unjustified impeachment of President Clinton, and concern about routinizing what should be an extraordinary constitutional event whatever the reason, an impeachment vote in the House was certain to fail.


That's a horrible reason and an unjustified prediction. An abuse of the impeachment power is simply no justification for required use of the same power. The founders Conyers cited above did not expect impeachment to be extraordinary, and it should not be any more extraordinary than are impeachable offenses. Predicting failure in this case was not crazy, but by no means justified. Success was entirely possible (and still is, before or after Bush and Cheney leave office). Moreover, this refusal to promote something likely to fail is coming from a man who every Congress, including the one that has just begun, introduces a bill to study reparations for slavery. In fact, I think it is safe to say that most of the bills Conyers introduces or signs onto and actively promotes are deemed guaranteed failures by the Washington establishment. And yet we need reparations for slavery. We need single-payer health care. Conyers is doing his job by promoting such things, and indeed they may succeed.

Conyers adds this:

What, then, would be the precedent set by a House vote against the impeachment of President Bush or Vice President Cheney for deceiving our nation into war, allowing torture, engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance, and retaliating against those who attempted to reveal the truth about these acts? In my view, a failed impeachment by an almost certainly lopsided vote would have grossly lowered the bar for presidential behavior and caused great damage to our Constitution. More immediately, a failure to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have been trumpeted by their allies as a vindication for them and for their overreaching policies. To all of us who treasure our constitutional form of government and our standing in the world, and mourn the loss of life in a war built on deception, I know the failure to impeach is a deeply unsatisfying outcome. As one who has participated in more impeachments than any other Member of Congress, I came to the realization that this is the reality of this moment in history. Faced with that reality, I had a choice: do nothing; or redouble my efforts to peel away the secrecy of this Administration, expose its wrongdoing, and protect the liberties and freedoms of the American people. I chose the latter course.


This is based on the false claim that failure was guaranteed. We had polls showing majority support with nothing happening in Congress or on the news. We had one pollster finding majority support and another refusing to poll on it because it wasn't in the news. Imagine where the support would have gone with Conyers' leadership! But suppose for the sake of argument that failure was guaranteed. Would an attempted impeachment not have sent more of a warning to future presidents than doing nothing at all? Didn't the senate acquit Clinton and didn't we still see Al Gore try to run for president pretending he had never met his boss? Again, Conyers is taking a narrow view. He would have had to be the man who led a failed impeachment. Never mind that the world would have honored his attempt. His colleagues would have seen a failure. And he would have been at odds with his party and perhaps been stripped of his chairmanship. These probably look like big significant things to Conyers. To the rest of us, a failed impeachment in 2007 or 2008 would have provided us with an ideal list of whom to reelect and whom to toss out on their ears in order to make impeachment happen in 2009.

Conyers goes on in his Foreword to enumerate his many reports and announcements, investigations, hearings, lawsuits, etc. Conyers opened a hearing on impeachment (but not really on impeachment) this past July by bragging about all the hearings he'd held. To him, these hearings and reports are, to some degree, ends in themselves. Actual substantive steps that impact people's lives can get lost in the shuffle. One such step would be impeachment, which could happen right now if Conyers wanted it to. Another step would be Conyers' clear and active support for a special prosecutor.

While prosecution of Bush and Cheney would be hard-pressed to fail, and politicians who supported it would be hard-pressed not to rise in popularity, Cheney has given us a preview of his legal defense: "We were never impeached."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
79. More like an ill wind...
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 04:32 PM by Baby Snooks
Quite a few around the country have gone to Conyers about the increasing number of civil rights violations in this country at the hands of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Do you see all the indictments being handed down after all the investigations by Congress forced investigations by the Justice Department?

Conyers is an ill wind in a Congress filled with ill winds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #79
86. Pardon? " ill wind?" Not sure why I'm being chastised for a simple K & R.
I'm a bit amazed at the number of posters who have taken this OP to be an apology for Conyers, when it strikes me as quite the opposite.

I couldn't be more disgusted at the fact that thanks to the cover and complicity of my own party, the Busholini cabal is still walking around free men and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. OMG I'm so sorry..
Obviously I am getting too old to multi-task - I saw "Chill Wind" and didn't realize it was your screen name and thought it was a reference to Conyers. I'm so sorry. You're okay. Conyers is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. No worries, mate. I can sometimes be too thin-skinned.
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 08:23 PM by chill_wind
(..."chill_wind" is my attribute to Tim Robbins' speech, which seems like an eternity ago, now:

'A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation...'

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/achillwind.html

I bet he would agree with you, as would I -- it HAS been an ill wind, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ah. A sternly-worded *REPORT*. Well, that's different.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
80. yes, more finger wagging and feigned indignation.
move along citizen nothing but the constitution going up in smoke, you've seen it before, move along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. And so I cast a bitter and sad 5th vote to send this to the greatest. nt
On edit, a beautiful OP. Please know that there are a substantial number of DUers who appreciate a thang of beauty! Keep up the good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. I do like the way this disagreement
is heading.

Kudos to you, David.

Also to Mr. Conyers, as I believe that we will meet him around the bend, completing the circle from different directions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stardust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. Conyers has been a huge disappointment. His excuses are stale
and unconvincing. They had plenty of time and evidence, but sorely lacked the courage to impeach. We know and he knows it.

I contributed to him after his first report, then later wanted a refund. Just like I'll probably want a refund from Obama when he doesn't prosecute Bushco for war crimes. :mad: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Agree. And this very good OP puts his excuses
under a long over-due microscope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dglow Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
90. Impeach Conyers!
David Swanson's critique of John Cponyers' feeble attempt to explain his cowardly inaction to begin impeachment hearings is right on the money. Conyers is my representative and I have been to many rallies where John faced his constituents nd impeachment advocates so I can attest to the real motivation that Swanson missed. After all of the excuses that Conyers repeats over and over again, fear is at the core of his inaction. In fact he has publically admitted his fear of Bush retaliation. So this 80 year old man would not take risks. He would ignore his oath of office. He would ignore taking the one action that would have put him in history books as a man of true conscience and a patriot head and shoulders above most American leaders. And so, he will finish his career as a shameful coward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. Did someone send him a message
or something?

He is so out of character is this new face that he is presenting.

:shrug:

Huum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
112. It's much easier to grandstand than it is to actually load the gun and
fire the damn thing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
33. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are the leaders of this Party. Not Conyers. So where do THEY stand
on impeachment? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. Obama came out against impeachment in June of 2007:
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

WASHINGTON (AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Because the OP doesn't dare call out Obama, Conyers will be the scapegoat! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #45
107. The OP has called out Obama many times. but this is about Conyers, It's a good piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #107
116. In other words, John Conyers is today's whipping boy, even though you all know that Obama, Pelosi
and Reid would never tolerate Impeachment in the first instance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. Please read our constitution. You will find that the Senate has nothing to do with impeachment.
Did you know that Conyers chairs the house judiciary committee?

Did you know that Conyers said he would impeach, then went back on his word?

You do know that other memebrs of Conyers committee have signed on to impeachment, but that Conyers wouldn't bring it up in committee, right?

Well, if you knew that stuff, i don't see why you are saying what you are saying.

I don't think you knew that stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #117
123. Errr... "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."
Art. I 4, US Constitution.

But thanks for the lesson, Mr. Darrow. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. Good. So now you know that impeachment is done in the House of Representives. if they
impeach someone, they send it over to the Senate. After the impeachment. For the trial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. No, impeachment is not "done in the House". The house brings Articles. The Senate tries it.
You typed: "You will find that the Senate has nothing to do with impeachment."

Then you typed: "Well, if you knew that stuff, i don't see why you are saying what you are saying.

I don't think you knew that stuff. "

Which is rich following such an erroneous subject line, to say the least! :rofl: At least have the self-awareness to be embarrassed by compounding your ignorance with arrogance. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. So you are claiming the Clinton wasn't impeached?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. No, he was impeached. And acquitted. By the Senate.
You know, the same Senate that "has nothing to do with impeachment." :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #137
143. You think Clinton was impeached by the Senate? You are wrong about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. You're a clown. That is all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #145
149. The Senate plays no role at all until impeachment is over and done. Then they hold a trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #117
127. Psst. I'm still waiting for a follow up to this little piece of wisdom: "the Senate has nothing to
do with impeachment"! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. Impeachment is like an indictment. Then the indictment is tried. The actual indictment
(the impeachment) is done in the US House. The Senate has nothing at all to do with whether someone is impeached.

If someone is impeached the Senate holds a trial.

This is what happened with Clinton. The Democrats held a majority in the Senate. That majority had zero say as to whether Clinton was impeached or not. The Repo controlled house impeached Clinton.

The Dem controlled Senate then voted not to sustain the charges levied by the impeachment.

You aren't the only person in the country to confuse impeachment (for high crimes and misdemeanors) with conviction. Just another in a long line of people who haven't taken the time to learn how our government works.

I suggest you check out the resources on impeachment at afterdowningstreet.org

You might learn something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #133
139. LOL. You are dissembling now. You said the Senate had "NOTHING" to do with it.
"You aren't the only person in the country to confuse impeachment (for high crimes and misdemeanors) with conviction. Just another in a long line of people who haven't taken the time to learn how our government works."

Well, you are the only person on this board who has asserted that "the Senate has nothing to do with impeachment." :silly:

You are embarrassing yourself further by trying to cover up your previous ignorance. The time for editing has passed, and the entire board can see that you've made an ass of yourself here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. The Senate has nothing to do with impeachment. I said it and i stand by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. ROFL. Art 1, 3, US Constitution says you're wrong.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
- Art 1, 3, US Constitution


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. i see basic reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. That's OK. you can have your
opinion and I will stick with mine.

You think the Senate impeaches people, I know.

You can believe that if you like. I don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. LOL. "You will find that the Senate has nothing to do with impeachment." - John Q. Citizen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #142
156. Roles in impeachment
The house brings articles of impeachment, the senate holds the trial.



Article one Section 2: Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power "OF" Impeachment.

section 3:Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to "TRY" all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. Even more distressfull, Obama said he saw "no reason to impeach" ...!!!
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 02:24 PM by defendandprotect
Which rather alarmed me coming from someone who taught Constitutional law...!!!

The way to end these practices is to use what the Constitution provides:

IMPEACHMENT

I'm also disappointed in Conyers over the past two years on this ...

but above him are Reid and Pelosi and the Speaker made her stand clear --

Impeachment is "off the table" ---

Tragic --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
118. It didn't stop Kucinich, but it stopped Conyers dead in his tracks. Why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #118
161. Kucinich isn't stopped by a lot of things that stop others ...
Edited on Thu Jan-15-09 11:53 PM by defendandprotect
love him -- but he will probably be chased out/targeted by DLC --

Yet Lieberman will probably have long career in Senate --

And Kucinich as conscience, above all --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
73. This...
Is why I backed Kucinich and Gravel first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you, David, for your continued unflagging work on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. He can explain till the cows come home.
Because of his utter failure, there is no possibility of impeaching any president for a just reason. The bar has been set too high. The president would have to murder the Vice President on television.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. The House can impeach a President for whatever reason it chooses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. As is evidenced by the Clinton impeachment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
66. If Bush had done that...
I would have probably dropped my calls for his impeachment. Hell, I'd vote to erect a statue of him in the rotunda of the Senate. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. By not impeaching, we are empowering the next Cheney-Bush to abuse the office.
They should be held accountable for their crimes, pure and simple. If for no other reason than to give future dictators and deciderers the clarity of their planned acts.

It's simple really...I could care less if the Senate doesn't vote in favor of impeachment...I understand the politics. But it would allow the voter to hold every Senator accountable for his vote in the next election. To not acknowledge the crimes makes the Democrats complicit in the Bush administration's crimes against the Office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. As soon as Conyers said we could impeach George Bush at the polls,
I knew Pelosi had given him his marching orders. Because he knows exactly how empty that language is and on about 5 different levels, not the least of which is the condition of this nation's voting systems. No one who went to Ohio and took that testimony could possibly say such a thing with a straight face. And I will never forgive Nancy Pelosi, ever and Conyers should be ashamed of his CSPAN theatrics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
11. tell it to the dead, conrack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDagnabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
13. blah blah blah....conyers has been turned and wont do a damn thing except talk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. The Only Thing "Certain To Fail" Turns Out To Be Conyers Himself
Chairman Chickenheart seems to have forgotten to squawk the "looking forward, not back" meme.

He can continue to mumble his seemingly endless litany of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">years-old rationalizations for inaction and failure for the rest of his days.

They will be his ONLY legacy.

---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
15. he used to say you can impeach retroactively, but i've lost hope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
16. AWOL
Not there to defend the Constitution as promised...what if our soldiers acted that way?

Words can't express the sadness I feel for America...we've been sold out.

Trust and Justice are history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
17. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rambler_american Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
18. K&R
:kick:
Bushco getting away with murder and treason transcends disgraceful. Congress is complicit in the destruction of our Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
19. Dereliction of his duty. Complicit. He should be impeached too.
I think that the concern is/was that some Dems, paticularly the Select Intelligence Committee folks like Pelosi and Jane Harmon and Rockefeller and a few others would get swept up in the investigation. Well, too bad. Party over country over Rule of Law.

Conyers has been one of the single most disappointing people in this entire mess. I have zip in terms of respect for him after all his grandstanding. If only he'd had subpoena power . . . oh, right. He did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Pelosi and Harmon are both House members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEuclideanOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
20. I am just sick and tired of hearing from all of the people who
were in the power to impeach, but didn't. Their complicity in these crimes is worse than the crimes themselves. You don't blame the crook for robbing your house (okay, maybe you do). He is a crook after all and that is what they do. But if the policeman watches him rob your house, admits that he knows that the crook robbed your house, but does nothing about the crime, you blame the policeman even more. On top of that, you get frustrated if the policeman gives you a list of reasons that make no sense at all. "I didn't think that the judge would send him to jail", for example. It also sends a message to other crooks that it is okay to rob.

This article totally ruined my morning. It does such a superb job of showing the absolute void in valid reasoning that Conyers is using to justify his failure to impeach Bush and Cheney. FUCK YOU CONYERS!!! YOUR FAILURE TO ACT MAKES YOU EQUALLY AS GUILTY!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
21. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
22. A superb post
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
24. Conyers is right.
"an impeachment vote in the House was certain to fail." - Conyers

That's a horrible reason and an unjustified prediction. - Swanson

Dude, that's like just your opinion...:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
58. Dude...
We should never judge doing the right thing based soley on whether or not its likely to garner support. The principled stand alone is worth the effort of getting off your butt, else history will judge us all as collaboraters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #58
83. Because a failed impeachment process would have totally helped us achieve our goals?
Fuck that. I stand with President Obama. Also, history in the sense you use it doesn't exist. Men write history. Historians far and wide will understand what has actually happened and not superficially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
131. FALSE CHOICE
You have just uttered a logical fallacy.

How the hell is voting to impeach Bush or supporting impeachment or pursuing impeachment NOT supporting Obama?

Explain that for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #131
138. Moreover
A failure to pursue some criminal charges and completely de-legitimize the Bushies for the CRIMES they committed while in office will result in "Clinton III: Death by the papercut chainsaw." Wherein the republican right will start screeching like the greek furies and drive the press to the right, the lefties will go nuts, and Obama will spend all of his time defending against pseudo-crime and pseudo-scandal.

If you want to prevent that you have to hit the Bushites really friggin hard right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #138
165. Wow
Edited on Fri Jan-16-09 10:10 AM by kenfrequed
Failure to explain = DLCbot hoping to quell progressive posters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. So, maybe murders that aren't sure to be convicted shouldn't be prosecuted either.
Bush Cheney are just like those murderers, X millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #71
85. Impeachment is a political process.
You Sheehanistas...you never win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
162. Well, the Clinton impeachment was ... however...
Nixon impeachment was ousting of a criminal --

Impeachment is a tool of government --

and don't doubt that GOP will try a repeat of their misuse of impeachment --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Amen...
Bottom line was the votes weren't there to impeach...even with a Democratic majority. There were enough "blue dogs" who were more yellow than anything else when it came to this topic and would have never voted against the boooosh regime. And that doesn't even take into account the massive vail of Executive Privilidge that made it all but impossible to gather the evidence (yes, evidence) to indict and convict...not just impeach, but CONVICT. We may now have the chance to get at some of that evidence and there remains subpoenas and contempt citations outstanding. The game about holding this regime is far from forgotten...if anything, it may just be starting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. These arguments have been addressed before. We don't know that the votes wouldn't ultimately
be there. The impeachment process probably would have snowballed and the cowardly ones would have jumped on board as it became clear where public opinion was. The evidence would have shown up. There were so many impeachable charges.

Having said that, I hope that you are correct about still holding these criminals responsible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
68. The president can't claim executive privilege when he's being
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 02:41 PM by rateyes
investigated for a possible indictment, which an impeachment would be. Impeachment would have assured that the subpoenas would be honored....another reason to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #68
122. Yes and No...
As we saw with the subpoenas to Rove, Bolton and Miers...we knew those subpoenas were legal and there was no way they could be covered by "executive privilidge"...but this regime played the card and did so to delay and run out the clock. Just because a court says they must...we've seen time and time again, this regime used every trick in its arsenal to either ignore, obstruct or delay justice and responsibility. Do you honestly think an impeachment would have changed this? If anything it would have stiffened resolve...simply cause boooshie knew that there weren't the votes for a conviction (and probably not enough for a conviction)...and would have used any and every trick to turn the process into a circus.

Now let's see where things proceede. I've long favored defacto impeachment...based on truly investigated criminal, rather than political charges. Or allow individual suits to dog these war criminals for the rest of their lives...drain every penny they have and always make them look over their shoulders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #122
150. The House was not investigating Bush for a possible indictment of crimes.
If they had started impeachment hearings against Bush, he had no standing to assert executive privilege. That's what got Nixon in trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Nixon Was Responding To Criminal Charges...
Obstruction of Justice, Tax evasion...he had been proven to be culpable as an unindicted co-conspirator. That criminal indictment was the underpinning of his impeachment. He wasn't nailed on abuse of power, but on obstruction...a criminal offense rather than a political one. Clinton's was based on Starr's "report"...again, a "criminal" referral so that those articles also were based on criminal (perjury) charges rather than political ones.

Conyers has addressed this matter in the past...the difference between impeaching on criminal grounds...on grounds based on facts and evidence and a more narrow focus vs. a political one that has both a broad definition of "abuse" (and surely a massive constitutional and court challenge) as well as intent. The criminal referal also removes a lot of the partisan games...especially, as in Nixon's case, it was a grand jury where the charges originated...THAT's what got Nixon in trouble.

As one who remembers Watergate well too well...impeachment hearings came almost toward the end of the "process"...after several investigations as well as testimony that backed up the criminal charges. Even then, there were goons like Trent Lott who felt that obstructing justice wasn't a high crime, yet lying about getting a hummer was. Rodino knew he had the numbers on his side starting the Judiciary hearings (it never got to a full floor vote).

Nixon's greatest mistake was his vanity and putting in that taping system. Imagine if we had boooshie on tape saying to stonewall an investigation. Conyers didn't...just political, not a criminal case and what he considered wouldn't succede...meaning a conviction.

Again...we saw over and over again, booooosh would obstruct to the bitter end. No subpoena, no court, short of a SCOTUS ruling would matter to him. Fielding...who worked for Nixon was brought in purposely to run the clock out and earned his money.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #152
154. You're right KharmaTrain that the criminal indictments in Watergate...
...did help with laying the groundwork for how the events unfolded. But still, I think starting the process of impeachment would help bring out evidence that could be used in the Obama Justice Department in possible investigations that could lead to criminal prosecution. "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush" is an excellent reference piece that should be helpful to anyone who closely follows any such criminal proceedings. I myself would be in favor of doing a post-facto impeachment based on evidence found in a criminal investigation or as an alternate route to force testimony from officials. I still believe an impeachment of both * and Cheney could be completed in record time (started in the morning, completed in the afternoon). While I agree it's highly unlikely to happen in these final few days, I do believe crazier things have happened as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. One Leads To The Other...
I would love to see the war criminals that destroyed this country prosecuted...each and every one of them. If anything, I'd say impeachment alone without any other action would be a travesty...especially if it turned into a political game that acquitted booosh. My hopes are that the crimes will start to truly unfold and compell actions either through civil, criminal or international courts (I'm not picky).

I'm also strong in favor of de-facto Impeachment based on evidence that now can be gathered (if it hasn't been shreaded) and testimony without booosh having the ability to silence them with his obscene abuse of power. It's not that the crimes aren't there...it's the hard evidence isn't. Cheney, in the past weeks, has sure helped, but, unlike Nixon's smoking gun tapes, the case will involve a lot of investigating and soul searching. Again, the crimes are there and in so many different areas, I can't see how they remain "buried"...and with this regime gone, hopefully a restored and rejuvenated Justice Department will feel compelled to investigate to restore its own honor.

If we impeach, we convict as well...and without any doubt for all to see. But I'm far more interested in bringing ALL the criminals in this regime, just not two, to justice and to have to finally accept responsibility. I know that's a dream as well, but at least, I hope they're dogged the rest of their lives like Pinochet...fighting law suits and being personna non grata around the world.

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. I think we are talking two sides of the same coin.
Nixon was impeached for obstructing the criminal investigation. If Conyers had started a criminal investigation, claiming executive privilege would be an obstruction, and an impeachable offense in and of itself. SCOTUS cleared the way for such a charge in Watergate, and it brought down Nixon. The minute he had to turn over the tapes, it was over. So, Bush could have claimed privilege, but it would just create another impeachable offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. We're Definitely On The Same Coin...
I don't think there's any argument about what the booosh regime did that was impeachable...or at least I'd hope not. If anything, the list is so long, it's where to start. That said, even proving obstruction unless you had a John Dean or someone else come forward to corraborate it would be a he said/she said game...and then it becomes a political game. Not to rehash...but the Democrats and democracy would lose if it was purely political. Nixon's tapes made his obstruction real...and forcing the tapes was just icing on the cake.

While the court decided Executive privildge didn't extend to Rove, Bolton & Meiers (a no-brainer), it's not such clear sailing as to its real application for the president and veep.

IMHO, the saving grace here is that without any indictments or convictions, booooshie has little room to pardon, but I won't put it past him to try some defacto immunity bullshit as he's walking (or being dragged) out the door. I'm hoping an energized Justice Department (something we haven't had for 8 years) will follow through on the many pending invetigations and those that are sure to arise. I won't be satisfied until I see booooosh, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, pearle and rove in the dock in the Hague.

Cheers....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
27. Two things jump out to me.
The first is this:

"Nonetheless, I have been accused of "violating my oath of office" by "playing politics" with impeachment"

Count me among those that accuse him of this. Anyone with critical thinking skills would reach the same conclusion.

The second is this:

"The report includes 47 recommendations, some better than others, and has a tendency to ask the next president to ignore bad laws while offering that Congress might pass better laws "if necessary"

Congress doesn't need to pass anymore "laws" surrounding this issue nor ignore existing laws.


The ultimate question I would like to know is who controls and directs our party and makes its unilateral decisions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
28. David - there's an unspoken reason why Conyers didn't impeach:
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 08:00 AM by leveymg
the fear was that Impeachment Proceedings would have riled up the Republican base, and in the propaganda wars that would follow -- Bush-Cheney would wrap themselves in the flag -- the GOP might actually win the presidential elections.

That's the main reason, unspoken, but not a bad reason. Call it overly-cautious, but it's not treason.

The facts will come out. A lot of the Bush era monsters will get hauled in front of hostile committees and some will face juries. That will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Are you sure that reason was unspoken? I feel I've heard that alot.
I surely hope your conclusion is right. My overall problem with many in the party is they didn't have to aid and abet by voting to give the bush administration more unconstitutional powers especially given some were visibly and publicly controversial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. he often spoke it in the recent past
and i mentioned it in the post above

i think it was both wrong on its own terms and inexcusable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. But, on the face of it, Conyer's strategy worked.
A frontal assault to remove the President and Vice President carried enormous risks. One cannot deny that. It just didn't seem to make sense to do it that way, and jeopardize winning the White House in 2008, just to make a point in 2007, particularly since the other route -- removal through election -- appeared much more of a sure thing that would accomplish the same end result.

My apologies, David, if I didn't read closely enough. But, given the actual outcome, it wasn't wrong on its own terms, and on a moral level, I'm happy it was achieved through elections. That was a direct indictment of Bush-Cheney by the American people, and it should not have been denied. I'll be happier, indeed, when the courts bring them to justice. The courts can do something Congress never could -- send the bastards to prison for their crimes of state and crimes against humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
114. yeah
all wars continued and expanded
precedent set that presidents are above the law
the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments trashed by legislation
lawless detentions, torture, and murder established as acceptable tools of the presidency
mission acomplished!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
126. That depends what you mean by "worked". Obama was elected
and the Democrats gained seats. But our government is still seeded with criminals and some of them are now part of Obama's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. It was neither unspoken, nor a reason. Simply more rationalization.
It begins from an unfounded conclusion of feared "backlash."

What David means by "wrong on its own terms" is that all the evidence showed that the opposite was true. That there'd be no backlash. That far more independents supported impeachment than opposed it and that the number of people defending bushcheney on any front was in free fall toward its low of 18%.

A paranoid conclusion persisting in the face of all evidence is certainly a "bad reason." (And inside the beltway generally passes for "conventional wisdom.") Consequently any claims about any benefits from this false presumption are also false. It's more likely that failure to impeach cost us the super majority in the Senate and the ability to ignore the blue dogs in the House.

But on moral side of war crimes, treaty obligations, and patriotism an "overly-cautious" strategery may not be treason, but it is surely a form of corruption. It begs the question: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/15">Why Does "Our Side" Get to Benefit From Ongoing Torture?. Because that's what all these electoral rationalizations amount to.

And so now even the short-sighted "benefit" of these self delusions have run out. Obama is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12kristol.html?ref=opinion">about to become President Torture II due to his own, and Conyers' and Pelosi's etc..., failure to stand on principle, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

And we remain a once-great, morally crippled, War Criminal Nation.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. Oh, IT's TREASON!
Bullshit on waking the 18% backwash. Who gives a shit? A minority of idiots have no power, unless Conyers gives it to them. No, he has been playing this game because he works for someone other than the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
60. Just like in '92.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alllyingwhores Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
82. I would say, F__K THEIR BASE!...THE KEPT IT ANYWAY...BIG F__KING DEAL!...
The overwhelming majority of voters voted in 2006 to give the spineless Dems the majority to confront the Bush regime...and they did ABSOLUTELY F__KING NOTHING!

F__K CONYERS! His arguments are insulting to anyone with base cognitive abilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
92. For those who are *really* in power, it doesn't matter which party wins... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
95. Yeah. Impeachment would have made Rush Limbaugh angry.....
...so we decided to just slink away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
109. well, obama won. what the fuck is stopping conyers now? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
119. That's even more treasonous. Ignoring the law for personal political gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
29. Thanks for this post. I just sent Conyers another 2 emails yesterday about Schlozman and Tanner.
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 08:02 AM by mod mom
I regularly feel the need to express my frustration and outrage to him over the abandonment of rule of law.

I always appreciate your dedication and informative posts, David. rec'd.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
34. It's silly to scapegoat Conyers. Where are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid on impeachment?
Ever even hear them mention it?

<crickets>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Sending mixed signals is a problem.
We knew that Pelosi and Reid stood with bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. they're all complicit. happy now?
what's silly is your argument against calling out conyers:, that davisswanson didn't call out every person complicit with failure to impeach in this one post!

THIS post was focusing on conyers because of recent events. nothing wrong with that. stop subverting the people who are really trying to do something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. The difference is THEY ARE THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY. Jeesh. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. you'll have to be clearer than that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #34
110. where is obama, pelosi & reid? well, obama is now in the executive branch
and the other two dimwits are in the senate

impeachment begins in the HOUSE! AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WITH CONYERS--THE LIAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #110
128. You know damn well that they won't bring Articles if they don't think they can get a conviction
in the Senate. That determination is one that takes place among the top leadership.

So it's idiotic to lay this at the feet of John Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #128
136. bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #136
141. Touche. LOL. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
35. So, you have no spine and aren't worthy of the office you hold.
Got it. Resign any time you'd like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
38. Vichy.
Excellent post as usual, K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
40. "...the assumption that failures to impeach do NOT have consequences..."
that says it all.

thank you for this excellent report. conyers and pelosi are complicit in the crimes of bush/cheney, inc. for promoting the self-fulfilling prediction that impeachment was destined to fail. as in all things, the more people who support it, the more people who support it (see: multiple du arguments against kucinich for president, i.e., "he'll never win."). in the end you either support something or you don't. if you don't support opposition to corruption you become complicit in corruption.

the other problem which you touched on is the"communication" system we have in america, i.e., the corporate media. of course those folks would make a circus out of it. but what did they do about that?

it has been my contention, since the sixties, that the failure to bring the truth about government corruption to light is the PRIMARY problem in the u.s. all but a handful of politicians are complicit, and even they are not doing enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
98. simply because that government corruption provides the $$$$
millions and millions and millions of $$$$$$$

the politicos of all parties desperately need to pay for everything that is needed in order to win elections, or 'compete' at 'trying to win' elections.

Ok, the house(s), trip(s), jewel(s), offshore(s), 'social standings' too, but all that is usually a standard 'part of the deal'

Make ALL funding PUBLIC (and EQUALLY 'restricted') and soon enuf, the American People will regain true ownership of THEIR governments.

It's as simple as that.

Otherwise: kiss True Justice goodbye (forever).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
41. It's simple.. he's spineless, gutless & nutless... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capt. America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
43. Too bad Shrub didn't get a blow job instead of committing war crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
46. Excellent post, David
By not acting, Conyers is guilty of aiding and abetting this criminal administration. His excuses are bloviation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
49. NO EXCUSES! Conyers & Congress are complicit in the crimes of * Co. Period.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
50. Thank you David!
You know, I think you should be head of the Judiciary committee because obviously you have a clearer grasp of the situation that CONyers. Have you considered running for Congress?

I just really want to say THANKS! because I have been so infuriated with Conyers I do not have anywhere near the patience that you have to detail and document all of his absurd excuses but it needed to be done.

He is the person that made me realize that our entire Congress is corrupt and probably planted by Bushco (and/or mind controlled) way ahead of time for this specific purpose. Nancy Pelosi...the bailout on top of everything else...we have no one working for US(sans Kucinich) in Congress. They are the mob and they are looting the country on top of killing millions mindlessly. Our entire Congress needs to be replaced. But it also makes one wonder, what the hell is wrong with Americans? What kind of drugs is everyone on anyway? How do these bastards know that they will get away with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
51. I still want to give Conyers the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know what kind of pressure he was facing from party leadership. I think he's maneuvering through a political minefield. For now, he has to do what he needs to do to placate party leaders. And we need to do our part to continue the pressure to impeach.

I wish our party had a stronger backbone. But given the kind of environment Conyers has to work within, while i disagree with his actions, I think I understand it. Conyers is a wise man. I suspect this is all about timing; he's waiting for the right time to pounce, and until then, he has to tow the party line.

David, thank you for all the outstanding work you've done. We should definitely continue to express our outrage to Conyers. I think Conyers would want us to continue doing it, even if it means harsh criticisms of his inaction, so he can use it as exhibit A to show party leadership that we want accountability, we want those criminals prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
53. I see. There is much to look forward to.
Thank you for this post. And I have not read but the first few paragraphs. Very optimistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
54. conyers misses the most important point of all, yet again....
The role of leadership is not to be buffeted by circumstance, but to create the conditions necessary to do the right things effectively. All Conyers is doing is admitting defeat a priori-- that is a failure of leadership, an acknowledgment that neither he nor anyone one else in Congress possess the leadership credibility to get the job done. He makes a compelling case for impeachment, so there is little question about the strength of the evidence.

The only questions are about the character of leadership necessary to act upon that evidence.

Conyers and the democratic leadership are not charged with just the easy part-- considering the evidence-- but also with the hard part-- creating the atmosphere that would allow such consideration to proceed effectively. That's where leadership is necessary. That's where Conyers and Pelosi utterly failed, along with most of the rest of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
55. Conyers conveniently forgets....
he forgets to mention that, although there may be no constitutional mandate for impeachment, the oath of office that he took, when he was sworn in as a member of congress does mandate that he impeach Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Agree --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
56. K & R ... I am so disillusioned with Conyers AND also
with the whole of the Democratic Misleadership in Congress on this issue.

As noted above, Obama went with the Misleadership's so-called conventional wisdom, as even did Howard Dean (otherwise my hero) when he was confronted precisely with the question of why the Dems would not impeach during one of his visits abroad.

We who spend major parts of our professional and personal lives abroad have seen firsthand what the unfettered lawlessness and criminality of the Bush Administration have done to the credibility, standing and goodwill of our country globally. The fact that many of us were unsuccessful in convincing our lily-livered Dem representatives to fulfill their Constitutional duties won't let any of us off the hook, I fear.

The Rule of Law has suffered some very harsh setbacks. People like Conyers and all those who wafted ... and waft still ... with the "conventional wisdom" are largely responsible and let us not forget that, even as we work still to bring the criminals to some kind of accounting commensurate with their crimes.

:kick: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
57. That's thorough, beautifully-written, and informative. k&r
Thanks, OP, for all you've done.

:patriot:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. He traded Impeachment to chair the Committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
65. Conyers writes 7 pages of excuses that amount to one
big pile of bullshit.


And, I guess he thinks that will satisfy us.


I'll say it again. Conyers is a coward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
67. It will never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
88. What if some 1 out of a million fluke occurred and...
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 06:02 PM by Independent_Liberal
...it happened tomorrow within a matter of hours? I'm not saying it will. Instead of sticking with NEVER, I stick with "maybe, maybe not."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #88
158. I'd stick with one in 999 trillion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
69. Reluctantly K&R'd
I say reluctantly because I like Conyers and HR676 buys him a lot of credit with me. But this is disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
70. Infuriating
Conyers betrayed his nation for failing to impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
72. talk radio monopoly does the groundwork enabling for anti impeachment
every politician knows the consequences of getting screamed about on limbaugh and hannity and sons 24/7/365 when you're doing something like wanting to impeach their president. a lot of them are intimidated. but without that talk radio monopoly the true size of the minority would shake out and make a real democracy much more possible. it IS the GOP backbone- an often captive misinformed base ready to go- and until progressives recognize the importance of talk radio instead of ignoring it it will continue to enable those who pressure and pass on advice to conyers. and as long as no one gets their backs at or even knows about it guys like conyers will keep mincing words on issues like these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
74. that's a lot of words to excuse something that's really very simple . . .
"I have never wavered in my belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nations history." . . .

and yet you didn't impeach . . . and that, Congressman, is dereliction of duty . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Yes, very simple.
Conyers betrayed his oath of office. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
76. I appreciate what Conyers said about failure.
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 04:06 PM by mzmolly
I don't think that polls on public opinion would have moved the former majority in the Senate to remove and convict their King.

I do expect to see some sense of justice served in the new administration however. We can impeach Bush after he's out of office from what I gather?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
77. k and r
I spent lots of money on stamps and stationary to the 23 Dems on the Judiciary Committee to get them to start Impeachment hearings.

After the 2006 election, I saw the Dems for what they are...complicit. The party of FDR who said to the Corporations, "I welcome your hatred" is gone.

In fact, I believe that this experiment of the US of A is coming to an end. The South can be its own country and have NASCAR as its national past time. The Midwest will just grow corn and soybeans. New England will have colleges. California will be California...maybe a North one and a South one.

I don't feel 'united,' do you? I don't feel represented. I feel ripped off by billionaires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
78. kick nominated n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
81. I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #81
87. Aww Craps!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
84. Despite this and all the hopelessness, doom, gloom and late hour, I still haven't given up on...
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 05:58 PM by Independent_Liberal
...impeachment. Am I crazy? I still think it could happen. Does that make me delusional? While I agree it's unlikely, I do know for a fact that it could happen in a record amount of time like David says if tried. If they (Dick & W) were both impeached on Jan. 19, I'd be satisfied. Hell, I'll still be keep calling for it after Jan. 20 if need be. There's nothing that says it can only happen when someone is in office. Though I would prefer doing it while the perpetrator is still in office, at least attempting to get it done at some time sooner rather than later will always work for me. There probably aren't many around here who feel the way I do, but that's how passionate I am and remain. I will hang on to it until Jan. 20 and keep hanging on to it afterwards (I don't care if it's 50 years from now).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FunMe Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
89. Yawn. Why waste my time on Conyers' yada, yada, yada?
They all become DC stepford wives, now don't they?

CONYERS is a sell-out. He truly has lost any type of respect he had garnered in his many years in the Congress. Shame on him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
91. He didn't impeach because the Democrats are complicit in Bush's crimes...
And because they don't want to set a precedent into investigating former and future Democratic presidents for the abuses of power Bush and Cheney committed. They don't want to investigate Bush's involvement in torture, because that might lead to investigating Clinton's torture programs. They don't want to investigate Bush's abuses of power, because president Obama and those after him might need them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
94. For people like Conyers to tap dance around impeachment
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 07:53 PM by bushwentawol
there must literally have been guns to peoples heads, maybe still are. Not to sound like a grassy knoller but I think there's been some dark stuff going on behind the scenes to protect * and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. Conyers could not proceed without Pelosi, Hoyer, the DLC saying yes..
I believe Conyers was used and accepted being used to calm the waters of all those who expected impeachment.

Take a look at the way Kucinich has been treated by peers.

I believe the final reason(s) will be complex and we will learn this:

Either the plan is an avalanche and flood of U.S., foreign, and world court lawsuits outside the Congressional impeachment court
OR
Dem leaders are truly traitors, with Conyers possibly less of a traitor than Pelosi, DLC.

Cheney, Perle, Hadley, Kristol are busy making statements of innocence and defense as DS stated in his last sentence.

Something is coming. I HOPE it is prosecution.

It's the only way to slow down these loathsome criminals. A message is needed for the thousands of understudies and those who will have already had several lives in Constitutional crime - the Negrapontes, Eliots, Ledeens, Rices.

I seethe thinking that they will working to takeover again if free of prisons.

This is a monumental effort.

Someone should prepare an Encyclopedia of all the players - the U.S. criminals who committed their crimes against the world and especially us - the little people - who they hold in disdain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OffWithTheirHeads Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
99. Get to the fucking point already. If I want to read war and peace
I will pour a glass of wine and light a cigar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
100. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
101. Ah yes
he beloved commission that takes years and years to come up with totally neutral findings after statute of limitations has run out.. Fuck em they are all guilty from the lowest congressman to al the way to the top
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
102. While it's easy to call him a coward
I think he's anything but a coward. The rest of the so called leadership know almost as much as Conyers and look the other way and pressured Conyers to do nothing. He knew he would fail. Not because of the Republicans but because of the Democrats. They would never stand behind impeachment-have you seen most of them EVER have the fricking guts to stand up to Bush on anything in the last eight years??????

Bush gets to have his library. He gets to have his dignity and sail off into the sunset. Liebermann is forgiven. They are all complicit. Goddamn it-Conyers is the only one that at least-and this is the only at least we get from these weasels called our represent ives-to document this horror. He gave us false hope. But I know he wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney!!!
That's more than I know anyone can ever say about Obama or Clinton or any of the rest of them sans Kucinich.

IS Conyers wrong to have not tried? YESSSSSSSSSS. I've said this for years on DU-Goddamn it I'm the anti-Will Pitt-that mindset thinks that eventually oh you know even if it takes a hundred years-some lives will be saved by electing Democrats. I think that trying to do the moral, corecct thing NOW matters even if you lose.
Even if you lose. It's the only thing that makes life worth living. Knowing you aren't betryaying others so that you can prosper. Knowing that you can look yourself in the mirror.

Conyers uses way too many rationalizations here. It's hard to defend this. I only defend him because he was there-Ohio-and because he's a old man that did his best. I can accept that from him. Did Pelosi do her best? Reid? Clinton? Did anyone risk anything? These are judgments that I make. I'd take another thousand Conyers over them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trthnd4jstc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
103. Excellent Exposition. What a shame about the Democratic Leadership. They make themselves guilty.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
104. Oh, I just thought he was all talk and no action. My bad. Moving on ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
105. This is sad.
Someday an honest gov might evolve. Hope for the best?

It's saddest for me, though, to have thought Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents, and found out later that he started the corporate welfare snowball.

Most folks I know think it's great slavery was ended! ....Oh, wait a minute....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
106. yawn...
more excuses. there is no justice in this country.

in 4 or 8 or 12 or 16 years, the next set of "bushes" will use the foul crimes of this cabal as their baseline.

just as the crimes got worse from nixon to raygun to bush I to bush II, the next fascist cabal will make us regret not having stood up to defend our Constitution and our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
108. Thank you VERY much for your work on behalf of impeachment / the American people and Constitution.
Thank you for the lengthy post on the subject...

If the Republicans sent Ken Starr to do a witch hunt, spending taxpayer dollars to do so, and so many Republicans stated publicly the horror of Clinton's acts and how they MUST be cause for impeachment (EarlG collected several of them into a wonderful post a while back)...

...then we have zero excuse to not immediately impeach and imprison Bush, Cheney, and everyone responsible. There are bullies in the White House, and yes, they must be fought and beaten, or there they'll stay (if not Bush and Cheney after January, then their judges, laws, etc.).

I really enjoyed "Constitution in Crisis". I believe that I read every page, including the outstanding references and footnotes. Fuck the CIA and Good Old Boy's clubs, get these monsters out of positions in which they can continue to cause harm!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
111. john conyers is the biggest disappointment in washington
out of ANYONE it is conyers

he reeks of disappointment

he drips of disappointment

he is saturated with disappointment

he is useless

he is a liar

he is nothing more than a slap in the face to every liberal who demanded justice, to every american who deserves justice.

milk toast

he should be so damn ashamed of himself he shouldn't be able to stand himself by now

i know i haven't been able to stand him for a long time

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #111
121. I agree Pelosi Reid the list goes on and on
butt kissers your not fooling ANYBODY

you participated and voted for this sham just like everybody else

But the Truth will come out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #111
129. So the fact the Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" gets a pass? Whatever. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #129
135. did i say i give pelosi a pass? NO i didn't.
i can't stand pelosi.

but i trusted and admired conyers.

maybe you just don't get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. This whole thread is a crappy scapegoat thread. NONE of the Dem. leadership want impeachment
which is why there will be no impeachment.

But if blaming John Conyers for the failure of the Democratic Leadership makes everyone feel "hopeful" again, I guess that's fine.

"but i trusted and admired conyers.

maybe you just don't get it?"

No I don't get scapegoating at all. When dozens of people are responsible, I assess blame on all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
113. an very impressive post and very very educationa, tho it leave me wondering one thing
Lets assume Conyers started the impeachment on the principle of the matter(as so many claim is important) without the votes to convict, as a result the republican base gets fired up and turns out in much larger numbers for the election with the end result of that being that the republicans win AND Bush and Cheney found not guilty due to the lack of votes.

Now how many of the same posters in this thread would have been accusing Conyers for causing loss, my guess is a majority of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #113
115. fantasies
should have some connection to facts
this one does not
a majority, including 20% of republicans, favored impeachment BEFORE conyers did anything, which he never did
that number would have gone up
a majority believed electing Dems would mean impeachment, and we elected nothing but Dems -- 30 new ones

it's important not to fall for this nonsense again, since we are about to be told that prosecuting the least popular two people on the planet would hurt Obama's "capital"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #115
120. i'm still amazed that so many fall for the bullshit every single time.
Apparently some people believe that enforcing our laws fairly and even handedly will destroy the country.

Why are they so ready, willing, and eager to gobble up that BS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #115
125. Yes and to hell with O's capital when it is compared to the
survival of the United states as an honorable nation for generations to come which for the last 8 years we have squandered for nothing more than mountains of cash for the few and the chaos on which those few thrive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #115
160. and...the impeachment process would bring to light many things
the "general public" have, perhaps, been unaware of

by the time the crimes were spelled out on national television and in the newspapers there would have been MAJOR public support--the impeachment process would have educated people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
124. The nut of this, at least to me, is;....
That Conyers rode the stormy waves of our discontent, while raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of them mine, with his public, loud and haranguing support of impeachment juxtaposed with his official cowardliness. Defending that cowardliness with nothing but double talk on the theory that you can fool most of the people some of the time pulling the wool with the comb of "new speak". Conyers it seems is destined to live out his days in comfortable, traitorous cowardliness rather than spending the time he has left gloriously as a lion in a golden chair at the top tier of historical magnificence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
144. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smitty Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
151. Forget it, it's over. Nothing is going to happen in the next few
days, impeachment is now a wet dream. Time to wake up and celebrate the new administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. It's actually NOT a wet dream. It can still be done after someone leaves office.
Edited on Thu Jan-15-09 07:12 PM by Independent_Liberal
And no, I'm not going to just "celebrate the new administration" without making sure we get a full accounting of past actions, or else we doom ourselves to repeat this 8 year debacle in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
163. He's a coward. Next excuse?
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
164. The Democratic Party (most of them) didn't support impeachment
meaning Conyers, Kuccinich etc were on their own.

What happened to the investigation of the fraudulent 2004 election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-16-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
166. K&R
This is profoundly disappointing on so many levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 05th 2021, 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC