Reaction

Great job Rob, just great ,like I always say OpEd is the best the web has to offer.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 178 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM
 

Rob

'Conyers: Let me just say this to you because there may be some other people that want to talk to me. Let me tell you this. If we started an impeachment hearing that didn't succeed, guess what would happen. They would say that he's being demonized, that Conyers always, they campaigned against the Democrats taking over last year, wait a minute, they campaigned against the Democrats saying two things, Rangel will raise taxes if the Democrats ran and Conyers would impeach Bush.

Now to come in on January 29th after having been impressed by your logic, Rob, and saying we're going after both these guys at once and if it doesn't, and I really smile at this one, and if it doesn't work at least you did it and taught them a lesson.

Well they would take that and that would bleed right into the election of 2008 sure as we're standing here.' 

***********************************************

If the above is the exact thing  Conyers said, May God help us all because the above is a drunken blubbery.  There are no even concise sentences in that ... I do not know what. No start and no finish. Who are 'they'?  Conyers always... what?  Why suddenly there is Rangel here? It is as if Mr. Conyers has his mind elsewhere. There is no meaning except some stupid, animalistic fear.  Did he drink  anything before talking to you? Did you smell alcohol by any chance? As a matter of fact, the WHOLE  Conyers talk was like that.   Is that his real way of communication?  Is that the way they all behave?

Rob,  I   am not trying to denigrate your achievements in any way but  there has to be some ...sense of reason here. The guy just did not give a damn about you and what you were saying.   He treated you ... like a  nasty child.  Please, I  am more sad than angry.  If someone talked to me that way I would simply say, 'F%&ck your drunken ass.' Maybe you could not say that because  you could be arrested for it?

by Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM
 

wrong

Did you watch the video or read the script. Keep in mind, conversations do not read like articles. He was clear, sharp, lucid and at all times respectful, though, a bit amused when I tried to lecture HIM about impeachment on the idea that it is a tool.

Congressman Conyers and I have chatted a number of times before and he's always been friendly, polite, even warm and welcoming, and though about to turn 80, he's sharp as a tack and I'm glad he's running the judiciary committee.  

by Rob Kall (727 articles, 3771 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1517 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM
 

You're glad he's running the Judiciary Committee!

I must be drinking the wrong stuff altogether. So, if I understand Conyers, we have such incompetent folks that it would be impossible to impeach this administration even though they: 1. Set the stage to involve us in a war in Iraq based on lies. 2. Ignored the Geneva Conventions and used torture, (under the guise of protecting America). 3. Fired Judges based on their decisions when they refused to participate in smearing certain Democrats. 4. Ignored our rights by wiretapping (illegally) our phone conversations. (And probably those of democratic candidates for various political seats, including that of the presidency). Then insists that for our safety he needs to be given permission to be allowed to continue to do so. 5. Is attempting to grant immunity to those telecom companies who cooperated in the violation of our rights. 6. His actions have been those of a dictator, utilizing signing statements which reflect that he does not have to abide by laws which are passed. 7. Perhaps most importantly, he has either lied to cover for the rest of his corrupt administration or has been so totally incompetent as to allow his administration to do whatever they chose to do, ignoring our Constitution. The reality is that there have been so many crimes that when one begins to consider what they are, it's overwhelming.

And to think that Clinton was impeached because of a bj in the Oval Office. Poor pitiful Conyers. What if we didn't have enough to make Impeachment happen? Well, if we democrats are that stupid, then let's just give the Presidency to the republicans and say to hell with it.

Even many Republicans know that Bush has broken the Law. How about if Conyers talked to those who drafted the Impeachment papers on Bill Clinton? Maybe if they held his hand, he would have the confidence. Conyers comments were completely offensive. His statement that because he's participated in more impeachments than anyone there must be some reason that he's not beginning impeachment hearings. Okay, I'll bite. What are they?

The problem here is that the American people are being treated like idiots. Somewhere along the line, Conyers (and many of the rest) have forgotten that they were elected to go to Washington, not to be LEADERS, but to be REPRESENTATIVES. George Bush is a complete idiot and he has been allowed to run over the top of the American people.

Not to worry John, we know you must have a reason that the American people should have been doormats for the past 7 years. This must be why George is so eager to 'bring' Democracy to the rest of the world. Ain't it wonderful!!!

I would have been fired from my job, were I so incompetent as those who fail to act without a guarantee of the outcome.  I believe the Constitution requires there be impeachment proceedings begun against this administration.

by Crystal Purcell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM
 

THERE IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, VOTE THIRD PARTY

 "Well, if we democrats are that stupid, then let's just give the Presidency to the republicans and say to hell with it."

You have another alternative.  Vote for a third party.  The Green Party is still the largest third party around, despite the demo Greens nearly destroying us in 2004 by saddling us with candidates, David Cobb and his running mate, Pat LeMarche, who covertly supported the Democrats as the lesser evil by only making a serious attempt to campaign in states where it was unlikely they would throw the election to the Republicans  If enough people stop wasting their time, energy and money on supporting the Democrats, and buckle down to the work of building a viable third party, whether it be the Green Party or a new third party if it proves impossible to end demogreen control of our party, we will have a chance of ending the two party Duopoly.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 252 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 6:18:31 AM
 

Ha! here's where we disagree Rob!

No I can't be glad that he is running the Judiciary Committee. Why should we be glad that a man with so little regard for the Constitution is heading the one Committee with the most responsibility for upholding the Constitution? It just doesn't compute. I'd much rather have a man or woman less suave or polite who would uphold the Constitution than a silver tongued devil like Conyers with a million fake reasons for letting the Constitution be flagrantly violated. 

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:28:42 PM
 

Thank you for pointing that out!

The man is incoherent, and he doesn't even realize how ridiculous he sounds. He has been lying and stalling for years on Impeachment. He admits he has all the facts to Impeach Bush- so what is he waiting for? How did this man get such an important job I wonder? We are trusting him to hold Bush accountable...

I cannot believe Dennis Kucinich thinks Conyers will do anything...so what really happened before the State of the Union?

by Nadia (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 6:08:05 PM
 

Conyers was NOT drunk and NOT incoherent

If you think that you weren't listening.  We need to get beyond just emotional venting or we will have no energy left to do anything when we work out what to do.

Conyers is right to be concerned about the consequences of impeachment failing - he would be an idiot not to be. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't do it - it just means he needs a plan.  His need for some sort of plan is something that can be respected.  Rob's argument about the way hearings could play out in practice has a lot of merit. There should be more of that. 

Conyers is right to be questioning whether both or one impeachment would be the way to go (if that way is taken). Were he not to he would not be thinking like a chairman.  There are opportunity costs of time involved even in doing worthwhile things and Conyers is right to be aware of those. But he is not right to play out the clock using no decision as a decision.

It would not have really have been possible in the circumstances for Rob to have asked some sorts of follow up questions but it is worth raising them.

1) What exactly IS Conyers "compelling reason" for not persuing impeachment right now? And it that really a compelling reason or is it a rationalisation. 

2) Does Conyers acknowledge that impeachment gives him the power to get around the blockage of Executive Priviledge (as Rob suggested) and if so when exactly (at what point in time) would he be willing to use that power?

3) Conyers said that some things could happen that would change his mind [on impeachment] and that [discussion of it] is not off the table. [Clearly Wexler (and co its not just Wexler) has gotten it at least on the table for now].

What would be one or some of those things that would make Conyers want to pursue impeachment?* Does he have any lines drawn in the sand with respect to timeframes for subpeanas not being complied with?

* Does Conyers need to see blood in the streets in order to recognize that things are serious?  Seriously, will he not accept anything less in terms of civil disobedience? People have been arrested for peaceful protests and sit-ins.  Does it have to get to actual violence in order for Conyers to see that the rule of law itself is at issue? These are not threats - they are merely adult questions. What will it take?

What sort of things would Conyers have impeachment activists do to help him make impeachment hearings doable?

Would support from outside the United States requesting impeachment hearings address the issue of illegal invasions and torture carry any weight and help allay concerns that impeachment is party political? What sort of organisations or bodies outside the United States would best help Conyers move on impeachment if so?

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 783 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 8:58:20 PM
 

KENYA SHOWS RESULTS OF STEALING ELECTIONS

There is an even worse possibility.  Kenya is showing what can happen when people steal elections.  Like the previous commenter, this is not a threat.  I am only pointing out what can happen.

   Actually, if Bush and Cheney cancel the elections before their term ends, or refuse to give up power if the majority of the electorate votes them out, violent resistance may be the only way of stopping them.  I hope this does not end like the situation in Kenya, where mobs from one group are going around hacking to death  and burning alive members of other groups.  But if the majority of citizens violently resist a coup, we will not be the ones illegally trying to violently overthrow the government.  We will merely be performing our duty as citizens to stop Bush and Cheney from illegally and violently overthrowing the government.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 252 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 6:40:10 AM
 

Brettp, your questions are well intentioned, but

With Conyers they are useless. He has already said it many times in many ways that he is not going to go forward with impeachment.  Check out his interviews on Democracy Now! for examples similar to Rob's.  

 1) What exactly IS Conyers "compelling reason" for not persuing impeachment right now? And it that really a compelling reason or is it a rationalisation. 

He stated his compelling reason to Rob, just as he has stated it many times before: his reason is that he is not assured he can get the votes in the House. Now is this really compelling? Of course not. But that is the reason he repeats over and over again as if it has some logic. It is a sentence that is grammaticaly correct so it isn't incoherant in that sense, but it is incoherent in the sence that it is opposed to reality. Knowing whether a bill of impeachment can get a mojority vote in the full House has nothing to do with whether an investagatory hearing should be opened for the committee to hear the evidence. But again and again Conyers says this is his reason "I can't get 218 votes." 

2) Does Conyers acknowledge that impeachment gives him the power to get around the blockage of Executive Priviledge (as Rob suggested) and if so when exactly (at what point in time) would he be willing to use that power?

This question is irrelevant to Conyers as he has never asserted that Executive Privilege is an impediment to impeachment. He uses the Executive Privilege argument for other hearings as a shell game to not deal with impeachment. No amount of trying to pin him down on this will be effective since he will just say of course he knows Executive Privilege is not available in impeachment. Since he doesn't want to do impeachment the point is lost.

3) Conyers said that some things could happen that would change his mind [on impeachment] and that [discussion of it] is not off the table. [Clearly Wexler (and co its not just Wexler) has gotten it at least on the table for now].

As other commenters said, being "not off" the table is very different from being on the floor.  Actually, in Parliamenary lingo, being "on the table" means the bill is killed. So Conyers must be chuckling to himself when he says it is not on the table, because he knows as long as it is on the table it is dead.  A bill only comes alive when it is taken off the table and raised on the floor. Pelosi has confused everyone by he unartful phrase "not on the table" which only showed that she doesn't know much at all about parliamentary language of the House of Representative. But she knows very well how to double talk with the best of them to confuse the electorate.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:43:31 PM
 

Greg, a response to further understanding and refine focus

Brettp, your questions are well intentioned, but

With Conyers they are useless.

    I'm not commenting FOR Conyers but FOR my fellow considerers of Conyers statements and to try and find ways to get impeachment happening given the facts of Conyers position as revealed for us by Rob.  

He has already said it many times in many ways that he is not going to go forward with impeachment.  Check out his interviews on Democracy Now! for examples similar to Rob's.  

    I know it. And I posted a diary entry of an interview with Amy Goodman and Democracy Now, to, as you are also doing, bring it to the attention of others.  

 1) What exactly IS Conyers "compelling reason" for not persuing impeachment right now? And it that really a compelling reason or is it a rationalisation. 

He stated his compelling reason to Rob, just as he has stated it many times before: his reason is that he is not assured he can get the votes in the House. Now is this really compelling? Of course not.

    Of course not, I agree.  

But that is the reason he repeats over and over again as if it has some logic. It is a sentence that is grammaticaly correct so it isn't incoherant in that sense, but it is incoherent in the sence that it is opposed to reality.

    Conyers is man, an important man for the purposes of impeachment as head of the judiciary committee, but just a man. His reality, must include political considerations and logistical considerations. I am saying no more than the obvious here, but many of my fellow commenters could benefit from considering that, Conyers would have to make some careful choices about the approach to impeachment, and the timing in which impeachment would be done, before he put if firmly on the table, rather than saying it is not off the table. I am not making excuses for Conyers - just acknowledging a reality - looking at a historic situation where a double impeachment is not only warranted but being demanded by many Conyers has got to be realistic and has got to manage time, resources, and expectations. He is just a man. 

Now our job as impeachment activists, I sumit, is to look at what it is going to take to get impeachment done given the givens. Part of that job, given that we don't as individuals, or even collectively as non-Congressional representatives have all the information, is to take on information from Conyers where we can. Take it on not naively or trustingly but critically and with a willingness to engage it and Conyers.

Knowing whether a bill of impeachment can get a mojority vote in the full House has nothing to do with whether an investagatory hearing should be opened for the committee to hear the evidence.

Essentially, I agree. But Conyers has to be aware, there are clamourings, to put it mindly, for two impeachments not one. Wexlers which is structured but only aimed at Cheney and Kucinich's second thrust, a thrust many want more than Cheney, aimed at Bush. Decisions about what hearings would go ahead would be required and Conyers would have to make choices and he would be held accountable, appropriately, for making poor choices. 

But again and again Conyers says this is his reason "I can't get 218 votes."

    And again and again we must tell Conyers that even though he is Chairman of the Judiciary and important he is not the whole show. He is not all of the Congress and he is not all of the citizens of the United States of America. He has a job to do. An important one. But it is not his job to extract 218 votes out of insentient stones, it is his job to give fellow Congressmen the opportunity to consider the evidence on serious matters in a serious way, and to show the American people that that is what is happening and that the House Judiciary Committee under his Chairmanship will do the job of the House Judiciary Committee and consider, seriously consider, the very important constitution issues raised by impeachment, which the people, through their representatives, have demanded, and causes to be brought before him.  

2) Does Conyers acknowledge that impeachment gives him the power to get around the blockage of Executive Priviledge (as Rob suggested) and if so when exactly (at what point in time) would he be willing to use that power?

This question is irrelevant to Conyers as he has never asserted that Executive Privilege is an impediment to impeachment.

    Questions aimed at gaining understanding of the reality of key decision makers are never irrelevant. Rob was right to raise the question of Executive Privilege with Conyers because executive privilege is being used to stop Conyers proceeding on matters such as the Harriet Myers affair. Conyers committee on behalf of Congress, that other part of the Government, is not proceeding fast enough because it is allowing itself to be fobbed off by the President, and is, perhaps as Rob suggests, not willing to use the tools at its disposal.  Pelosi, Reid, Conyers etc are being weak in Congress and sitting down when the Constitution requires that they be strong and stand up to defend it in accordance with their oaths.  Pelosi talks of not wanting to be divisive when the President's ambit grabs at power demand that she choose to stand with the President and against the Constitution or with the people and the Consitution and against the President. She is being divisive. She is just being cowardly in the way she is being divisive.  

No amount of trying to pin him down on this will be effective since he will just say of course he knows Executive Privilege is not available in impeachment.   

    I disagree. Trying to pin him down on this could be effective so long as he was either persuaded that the people were becoming savvy about the process and impatient about his moving too slowly and not using the tools he has or it could be effective in showing the people that he was dragging the chain.  The thing is impeachment has a logistical logic to it that has to run and the people who want it have to understand that logistical logic in order to put effective pressure on Conyers. It disempowers activists and empowers Conyers to do little if we don't put things to him that show him that we know.  Conyers can only treat impeachment activists with disrespect whilst they behave in ways that don't demand he show them respect. Rob was doing that. Rob needs support though or Conyers can think that Rob is too small a minority for him to be concerned about in comparison to the howling incoherent mob that each have a vote in the upcoming Presidential election. If Conyers sees idiots in the electorate he will, being a politician, cut his clothe and treat those idiots and their issues, will not more respect than he has to. 

Since he doesn't want to do impeachment the point is lost.

    The point is only lost when the people stop caring about how Conyers responds. Clearly, Rob's meeting with Conyers on impeachment, is something that people, people here anyway, care about.  Politics is about which points get lost. Impeachment activists have a duty to make sure it is not OUR points that get lost even though others may wish that they are. 

3) Conyers said that some things could happen that would change his mind [on impeachment] and that [discussion of it] is not off the table. [Clearly Wexler (and co its not just Wexler) has gotten it at least on the table for now].

As other commenters said, being "not off" the table is very different from being on the floor.

    Sure, I addressed that above. 

Actually, in Parliamenary lingo, being "on the table" means the bill is killed.

    It could mean that if we let it mean that. It could mean delayed or (as per Ron Pauls statement when Kucinich took the resolution to the floor on 6 November, it could mean that the bill is handled seriously and deliberately, as befits a serious matter such as, in that case, the impeachment of the Vice President.  The House Judiciary Committee is probably the right place for impeachment to be at this stage in order to go back to the Congress when hearing have been done.  But hearings must be done or else you will be right and the "bill" as you term it will have been killed.  Right now though, the death of impeachment seems to have been greatly exaggerated.   

Pelosi has confused everyone by the unartful phrase "not on the table" which only showed that she doesn't know much at all about parliamentary language of the House of Representative.

    Not everyone was confused. But Pelosi as a politician has to talk in simple to understand soundbites sometimes because simple to understand soundbites are what the media can convey to people easily. Whats off the table can go on the table. 

The issue is then, WHEN?  Let us say, NOW. Let us say, let impeachment hearings commence NOW. 

Let it be clear that Wexler is not the only one that wants hearings by a long shot. His 200,000 petition shows that. And it is but a small part because it deals only with Cheney.

For me, nothing less than the impeachment of Bush will suffice to redeem the United States of America as a nation of laws now, and to convince me that the United States of America is not itself, now, humanities most serious threat.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 783 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM
 

Really Confused

So, what ARE his reasons for not pursuing impeachment? 

What's this big silence about why?  If the reason is compelling, then we should know what that reason is.  He's essentially saying: "I have a reason for not pursing this but I will not share it with you because I'm smarter than you -- so, just let me deal with it."  WTF is that?  He was completely patronizing.

I found his answer really annoying and I'm in MICHIGAN!  He's not my representative, but I might just write him anyway about this.  Grrrrr.

Thank you for talking to him anyway, for whatever it was worth.

by Pixie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM
 

Pixie Please DO act on your emotion and contact Conyers.

Don't waste your legitimate feeling of frustration. Let Conyers know of it.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 783 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM
 

Tragecy and Hope

Bob, you are certainly to be commended for your courage in confronting a congressman with such a serious issue, but I feel like a father who listens to his hopeful pregnant teenage daughter each night talking about how everything is going to be fine "when" her boyfriend comes back to her.

The reality is that the sovereign nation of the USA is run by an organized crime syndicate (see Bev Harris on the NH vote recount). Republicans and Democrats are one and the same party and the congress is either complicit in the WH crimes or they are bribed to allow them.

I'm sorry, honey, your boyfriend is not coming back...

by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 65 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM
 

Thanks for the confrontation

Senility, egotism and primal fear is a bad cocktail.

There are many ways to "control" a congressman of Conyer's experience.

Some speculate a deal has been made to avert a threatened "catastrophic event" and concurrent martial law. But the AEI/PNAC crew continue full throttle with the PR campaign against Iran, despite the NIE and a botched "Gulf of Tonkin" media op.

He must know that any honest attempt to hold the WH accountable for its crimes would only increase his party's credibility and popularity, if he really cares about that.

For whatever reason, Conyers is afraid to do what only he can.

He is no Paul Wellstone, so he will almost certainly just sit on HR 799, hoping to run out the clock. As a consequence, Bush and Cheney (like Rumsfeld) will retire as "elder statesmen", the US will continue to descend into fascism, and in fewer years than most imagine official history will laud them as "visionaries" who "made difficult decisions in a time of crisis".

Hope I'm wrong.

by Michael Fury (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM
 

Re: Conyers Tells Rob Kall: Impeachment Not Off the Table

by Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 668 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM
 

Rob

looks  like most of the commenters above feel the same as I do. And.. they surely read the transcript.

by Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:09:11 PM
 

We're Inadvertently Giving Congresspeople Too Much Power

I am so mad after reading this. At Conyers, that is.

Mr Conyers it is not about your wishes that we are talking.

This is about the will and well-being of an entire nation of people. This is about murders by the hundreds of thousands overseas and of thousands of our own soldiers, for no reason at all. This is about protecting Us, the People from Red China-like dictatorship.

We are responsible for the impact we make on the lives of others, Mr Conyers. In your very highly responsible position, you have even more impact on the lives of individuals than most people. We hold you to your ethical and legal responsibilities!

The American Research Group's poll of November -07 indicates that 74% believe that Bush/Cheney have committed crimes against the Constitution, 43% believe Cheney should be impeached, 34% believe Bush should be...without Congressional hearings starting (more would join the "yes" camp after that) and even this late into the game.

How dare you, selfish Mr Conyers, tell us that your petty little image, and that of the Democrats', remains your sole concern??? People can lie mangled on the ground for all you care, others can be arrested without probable cause or warrant under the Patriot Act, while yet others are gagged with five-year jail sentences as punishment for talking. Yet....you, Mr Conyers, remain concerned about your image and that of Congress. Poor you. I am so sympathetic (NOT!)

SHAME ON YOU! UNBELIEVABLE. Mr Conyers, I hold you responsible for your complicity in war crimes, for cracking down on American free speech in post-911 legislation under the pretence of chasing after terrorists, for torture while the Prez gets out of jail free under the Military Commissions Act (even if you didn't vote for it yourself, which you didn't and I know that, having checked the Congressional voting record).....because by refusing to push impeachment through when We the People want it, you ARE complicit in all of the above.

Now here's a REAL thing I would like to hear about from you, Mr Conyers:

I am told by a Congressional Aide that you are being arm-twisted. Can you please tell us about that and how we, the people can be of help? Maybe the we will even come to some common ground. Maybe then something productive can be done.

I want to remind everybody reading this:

We should *never* even ask the *question* to a Congressperson what *their* position is about Anything. Because that is *not* why they are paid to be in public office. They are paid---We Pay Them-----to implement the collective will of the People. By asking them what Their Feeling Is about Anything, we hand them over the power which does not belong to them. No wonder we are getting a deaf ear! We the People are handing it over to them, in spades.

THIS is what has GOT to stop!
It's about time We the People asserted our own power.

Anybody who exerts their own will to the detriment of the People.....must be removed from office.....IMMEDIATELY!!!!

That includes you, Mr Conyers.

Mr Conyers, I have read here that you jailed Cindy Sheehan and others with her who came in a respectful way to talk to you in your office.

GET OUT!!!

I mean what I say! I am your employer! You're fired! GET OUT!!! NOW!!!

by Kathryn Smith (83 articles, 1 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 294 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:14:45 PM
 

Off the Table

Having impeachment not off the table is not the same as actullay having it ON the table.

Round and round we go. The lengths to which these double-talkers will go to stone wall an issue is amazing.

If these cowards can't see by now what the hell is happening, there's little hope. In a few more months it isn't going to matter anyway.

by Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:16:02 PM