Blast from the Past

John Conyers on impeachment in 2005:

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws.

The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.

In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. In Watergate, for example, the Congress did not begin matters as an impeachment inquiry, but investigated matters -- through the Ervin Committee -- and referred impeachable evidence to the Judiciary Committee.

 

 

 

by Kevin Gosztola (181 articles, 94 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 767 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 5:37:46 PM
 

Prima facie evidence is important. Prima facie evidence

falls short of proof but creates an obligation to investigate so that the rule of law doesn't fall into question.

There is a prima facie case (at least) that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, that it was pursued opportunistically and based on false statements.

There is a prima facie case (at least) that Americans have tortured.

It is beyond argument that Americans have signed treaties and have taken on obligations not to launch aggressive wars and not to torture and yet the fact of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath and the fact of photos like those that emerged from Abu Graib must have raised the question in the minds of the people of the world about whether aggressive wars and torture are now to be a part of the American way. This generation of Americans, on whose watch the serious questions about American values have occurred, owes it to the rest of the world and to future generations of Americans not to be good Germans.

By setting up impeachment hearing in the right framework, in the framework of this generation of Americans taking care of serious questions and threats to the future of America in the world, that have arisen on this generations watch, Conyers can virtually ensure that they cannot fail because either an acquittal based on the evidence or a conviction based on the evidence will show that the process is working.

I think this is close to Wexler's approach. Wexler is trying to keep the party politics out of it. He is trying to concentrating on the substance not the personalities.

No future President of either Democratic or Republican flavour will have a full range of diplomatic tools at their disposal or even have a reasonable prospect of being trusted by foreigners if impeachment hearings aren't used to answer the serious questions about where Americans now stand on launching aggressive wars and on torture.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 901 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 8:11:40 PM
 

Keeping his job?

WE Should all work together to throw him out of office, as well as the other Bush enablers.

www.peacecandidates.com 

Look, defend Conyers all you want, he LIED to everyone when he said he would pursue Impeachment if we gave the Democrats the majority and him the committee power.  He went on tour around the country telling people, taking in applause and donations based on the idea that he was leading the Impeachment movement in Congress.  

Shortly after the election, he said it was off the table.He states himself that he has it in his power and Nancy is not stopping him, so he alone is responsible for his lying and inaction.   He needs to be thrown out of office.  That is how you tell your Congressional 'Representative' that you do not approve of their enabling war criminals. 

by Nadia (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 6:17:07 PM
 

I didn't defend him

The point of this article is that we need to be more direct with the impeachment movement.

We've already made the case for impeachment and have a majority of Americans no matter what poll you cite that support impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush if they committed impeachable or criminal offenses. They have so...

Next, we need to target the representatives like Conyers who need to support impeachment in order for it to move forward.

If I am correct, the impeachment movement has been vicious with Rep. Nadler. This is how we need to be with Conyers. We need to find people in his district to make the sacrifice for their country---to do the patriot's task.  

by Kevin Gosztola (181 articles, 94 quicklinks, 63 diaries, 767 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 8:06:05 PM
 

What is needed is lots of good data from clearly non-partisn

sources that shows that America is on the nose internationally because of illegal wars and torture. 

Foreigners aren't polled on whether Bush and Cheney should be impeached and generally foreigners stay out of each others politics. But torture and illegal invasions are everyones business.

Get Conyers evidence that the rest of the world wants an answer to where Americans stand on illegal invasions and torture and Conyers and others can use it.

What is needed is statements from organisations representing civil rights and amnesty. What is needed is letters from foreigners to Americans that are not concerned about political party affiliations but about values.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 901 comments) on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 8:18:36 PM
 

Impeachment does not = removal from office

Clinton was impeached but still served out the remainder of his term. If Bush/Cheney are impeached, they would likely remain in office as well. An honorable man would step down in the face of such a scandal, but we are not dealing with honorable men here.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM
 

Impeachment does not = removal from office

Clinton was impeached but still served out the remainder of his term. If Bush/Cheney are impeached, they would likely remain in office as well. An honorable man would step down in the face of such a scandal, but we are not dealing with honorable men here.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM
 

But these bums are criminals - hence they go to jail!!!!!

Clinton just lied to protect himself the way anyone would. Haven't you all done that at one time or another? I have.

 But these criminals have been guiltyof sooooo many crimes that they should be in Jail and that is where we must put them. Does anybody disagree? I don't think so.

So about Conyers - impeach him, too! He's worthless as is Pelosi and all of the other bozos in Congress except for Dennis Kucinich. So if all goes as usual, Dennis will not be re-elected. The only honest person in Congress and the evil ones have shut him out of the democratic process.

Now is it time to write in Dennis Kucinich's name for president? That's what I will do on Feb 6 and on election day. I cannot vote for any of those whores.

And as far as I can see, it doesn't matter which party is elected. They are all the same.

 

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 196 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 2:31:58 PM