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, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM

  (0+)

'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 (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM

  (0+)

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 (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM

  (0+)

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, 47 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM

  (0+)

 "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, 325 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:18:31 AM

  (0+)

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, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:28:42 PM

  (0+)

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, 3 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:08:05 PM

  (0+)

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, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:58:20 PM

  (0+)

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, 325 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:40:10 AM

  (0+)

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, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:43:31 PM

  (0+)

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, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:45:17 AM

  (0+)

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, 50 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM

  (0+)

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

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM

  (0+)

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, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM

  (0+)

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

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:09:11 PM

  (0+)

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 (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:14:45 PM

  (0+)

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 (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 434 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:16:02 PM

  (0+)

conyers alludes impeachment would hurt the Dems chances in 08, so he won't go forward w/ just hearings. As if torture, warrantless wiretapping and 935 iraq lies aren't enough to justify hearings. Doesn't he think the Dem's betrayal of their Oath to defend the Constitution and just investigate a little will hurt their image with the vast majority of dems, a majority of independents and the 1 in 7 republicans that think Bush and Cheney have abused their power?

transparency and accountability are how we can best ensure honest, good government, not trusting it to self-serving elites who dislike public oversight. Public servants should not even have the appearance of corruption, deceit, undisclosed loyalties and interests.

No more Republocrats 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:22:56 PM

  (0+)

Conyers is putting politics before what is best for the country.

I've long admired John Conyers but his asking us to endure this president and vice president one more day so that Dems stand a good chance at the 08 elections is loopy.

Once again, the Democrats show that party politics trumps all. (We already knew that about Republicans.) Laws are for "other people" -- not politicians and not even when they are responsible for historical levels of human suffering and destruction of a nation (ours).

It hurts to admit but Conyers was the ONLY elected leader who gave me any hope after Bush was allowed to steal another election in Nov 04, but he has lost his moral compass since then.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:27:03 PM

  (0+)

 I am happy I am not the only one who wanted to say to that  guy ' F&$%ck up your ass'.  But  wow, most of the people   want even more than that!  Folks, it was a useful shatter of illusion.  For all of us.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:34:56 PM

  (0+)

.

Emotions are understandable (of course) but we need light not heat.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:06:07 PM

  (0+)

For those to young to remember the song it goes like this:

There's something happening here ,

what it is ain't exactly clear,

there's a man with a gun over there,

telling me I got to beware.......the fear of death and the love of kin can be a powerful motivator. 

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:40:02 PM

  (0+)

You're lookin' mighty good in that suit. Thank you for keeping impeachment up front and center. We must be relentless. As always, you were focused, rationale and spoke with conviction.

Sadly, you were speaking to politician, John Conyers. The conversation I just watched in that video was like a replay of the one I had with Conyers back in August in Newark, NJ. He spoke with the same tone, offered up the same false hope and the same excuses. In fact, you may remember I wrote about it right here on OpEdNews, Dancing with Conyers.

A few days after I spoke to him on his tour promoting H.R. 676, he started his now empty mantra of "It might be off Nancy Pelosi's table, but it's not off John Conyers." It's what he says to get people off his back, but hopefully he is leaving the door ajar.

I applaud your efforts and wonder how many could truly articulate their stance when actually in the same position. I do think we need to find another angle, though, next time any of us are nose to nose with him.

If I had the chance again, when he brags about being in the most impeachment hearings as anyone or about the books he wrote on Bush and impeachment, I might ask a few open-ended questions like, "Why did you decide to write those books?" "What has changed since 2005 when you introduced legislation to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment?" (which is what Wexler is trying and Conyers is not supporting).  "Why did it matter then and not now?"

Of course, there are a few others floating around in my head, that are most likely not appropriate to print. But, maybe we can learn from these conversations and fine tune our approach? Ideas anyone?

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:40:52 PM

  (0+)

where's the editor when you need him ?

"One thing seems clear. John Conyers is VERY aware of his place in history, the power we wields."

Sorry, that's not the only typo but it's the best one I saw.

Conyers. What's not off the table is Conyers' support of the plutocracy and corporate rule & personhood. Conyers, as a senior member of the CBC isprotecting one thing and one thing only with his refusal to proceed in impeachment matters and that is the possibility of our very first black pResident. How selfish and how narrow-minded of this most respected man? I am appauled at his lack of action and his indifference of what these criminals may impose upon ....during these last few months of what has turned out to be our worst nightmare. You may recall, my last comments, which were more or less responses to an article which Conyers himself (supposedly) posted right here on OEN were quite insulting and derogatory. Today, after both *reading the transcript and *viewing the video clip, I, saldy enough have the feeling that my reactions to that article were just and spot on. Nuff said. Conyers cops out. Nonetheless, I was very very impressed with your posture throughout that brief and difficult interview, Mr. Rob. Brief and difficult, only because Conyers only barely gave you the time of the day while you were giving him what many will have seen as his very last chance to regain credibility.....which he most blatently blew all to hell.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:41:22 PM

  (0+)

Get a grip folks. Imagine what you would be like if you were in Congress and people who opposed you ranted and raved and threw idle insults in the manner that some above are doing....It would have to make you a bit thick skinned...Back to the table. This is the best indication we have gotten from Conyers. Take heart from it. Conyers is sincere in his desire. This life and death card game is not over yet, any number of things can break the wall of invincibility and we don't know what may happen tomorrow. Don't pull all your hair out before then.

by GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:57:04 PM

  (0+)

I was respectful and courteous to congressman conyers and he gave it back and gave me his time. The cavalier uncivil talk here is common on blogs, but what good does it do? I'll say it again here, because it seems like some have not read my comments after the transcript.

He will be in a perfect position, to take the natural next step, if Bush and Meiers continue to refuse to respond to subpoenas.

I believe that he needs to re-think the impeachment scenario. He starts hearings, Pelosi keeps Republicans from voting on them, the hearings continue until either CHeney then Bush resign or the next president is inaugurated. It never goes to a vote, ever. The dems run out the clock, doing executive privilege-proof hearings subpoenaing whoever they damned well want to. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:08:30 PM

  (0+)

besides those who just get their kicks out of criticizing while offering no cogent solutions, i think what you're seeing, Rob, is a tremendous level of frustration with Congressman Conyers. unlike some i continue to hold out hope that what you suggest might happen will happen. but, i follow his remarks and conversations very closely with impeachment activists throughout the country and to many it just seems like more of the same. i hope that it's not.

but, even looking at your last comment regarding subpoenas - when Dennis Kucinich issued his privileged resolution on november 6 we used the time leading up to that day to lean heavy on rep. conyers and members of the judiciary. as a result, on november 5, Rep. Conyers issued his "final call" to the white house over those subpoenas. he told us he would do this by thanksgiving. i am convinced this statement (which i heard directly from his office) was because of the increase in calls for impeachment at that time. It was even reported in the MSM - most likely because the word impeachment wasn't used.

November 5 (AP) House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers exhorted the White House Monday to comply with subpoenas of President Bush's key confidants in connection with a probe of U.S. attorney firings.

In so doing, the Michigan Democrat raised the specter of a House floor vote by Thanksgiving on contempt of Congress citations against chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former legal counsel Harriet Miers.

"I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis," Conyers said in a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding.

He asked Fielding for a response by November 9. What happened?

Now, Kucinich was originally planning to file articles of impeachment against Bush yesterday and Wexler, of course, is turning up the heat on impeachment hearings and now we hear about backroom talks about investigations and hearings and subpoenas.

As I said in my previous comment, Rob, I think you handled it well. And, I'll add here that people should appreciate the fact that you pressed the issue at all. I'd like to know what some of them have done for the cause. But, please understand so many of us have poured countless hours into this effort and to keep getting the same response from the same man - well, my forehead is getting a little sore and there is barely a mark on the wall.

Congressman Conyers, if you are reading this "Show me the money!"

Peace.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 3:22:35 PM

  (0+)

Good question. Nothing I presume or we'd have heard about it.

In order for the impeachment movement to deal intelligently with Conyers the impeachment movement has to acknowledge the reality of Conyers position politically and legally.

Conyers may not do what we want him to do but he cannot do what is impossible. Unless we have in mind a scenario where impeachment can be credibly pursued and are in a position to KPI (key performance indicator) Conyers against that scenario then we will not know if he is playing the impeachment movement for his own purposes.

Ignorance is a trap for activists. Sometimes we don't know what we need to know in order to understand what is going on. Damn, I'm sounding like Rumsfeld.

Is there a last possible date for impeachment to occur? - I think that there is - I think that impeachment after the President is no longer the President is not impeachment but I could be mistaken. (Besides whether Americans are for or against illegal invasions and torture is something that should be part of the discourse before the next President is sworn in rather than afterwards). 

What would be useful would be an interview of Conyers in which Conyers himself explained the logistical barriers and procedures that would have to be gone through. If he could show his working so to speak for his view that impeachment is impossible we could look for faulty assumptions. What Conyers is getting away with at present is making appeals to authority. His own. He isn't explaining why impeachment is impossible he is just stating it.

Those that don't want to engage with the issues of practicality (perhaps like Kathryn Smith because she feels Conyers works for the people) don't have to they can just demand impeachment now or Conyers resignation, but I'd prefer to see a little more reasoning and understanding employed.

Assuming Conyers is not going anywhere and that he still cares that the Democrats stink less than the Republicans to the Democrats - teams of activists (one questioning one videotaping) can gather intel from Conyers because he cannot be unavailable.

John Conyers cannot hide if hiding is what he wants to do unless activists let him hide. And if he is doing his best and the best that can be done he should be able to show that he is and to explain that he is not just state that he is.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:59:30 AM

  (0+)

I'd like to see Rep. Conyers's office receive a million postcards telling him, "Don't worry, America has your back. It does not matter what the Republican spin machine says--more than half the country wants you to do what is right and what the Constiturion requires of you.  Now let 'er rip."  He needs our support, not our contempt.

JP 

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 5:03:29 PM

  (0+)

I know I could not have engaged him nearly as well as you did because I would have been too confrontational. I would have boiled over with the crap he was spewing.

You did good. 

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:23:30 PM

  (0+)

My feellings go back and forth over the issue of being 'nice' and 'playing nice'. Where has being 'nice' gotten those of us who feel that our government REPRESENTATIVES are so busy serving themselves and saving their place in the House or Senate that they really don't care what those they are to REPRESENT have to say and what their wishes are?  We do not elect leaders, we elect REPRESENTATIVES. I'd be in favor of being nice but in my experience, they don't listen either way. So when I'm pissed off, it's better for me if I let them know. They still won't do anything but at least I have told them how I feel about their miserable performance!

by Crystal Purcell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:20:34 PM

  (0+)

If Mr. Conyers has been threatened, or his family threatened, then HE SHOULD GO PUBLIC.  That makes the threat much less possible.  He need only begin his announcement of the opening of impeachment hearings with "...even though I have been personally threatened, and the lives of my family have been threatened, I have no choice but to go forward..."

If Mr. Conyers has been led to believe that there would be a false-flag or constructed "national emergency event" and martial law declared if he began hearings, then he need only RELY ON THE STRENGTH AND POWER OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and THE POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

They don't have enough troops to keep the progressives of this country in place if they try to go the ML approach.  Everything about controlling Americans has been about using SOFT approaches like media, disinformation, distraction, and bribery.  The HARD approach will not fly.  And, the time to test it is NOW, when the SCOTUS is still 5-4 in favor of Democracy over Fascism, not when they lose the center.

If he really believes that it is POLITICALLY inexpedient to the success of the Democrats in November 2008 to begin hearings, then he is making a horrible deal with the devil, and his legacy will be to have sold out the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and EVERYTHING THAT AMERICA STANDS FOR to achieve a victory in November that will probably turn out to be hollow at best.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:58:28 PM

  (0+)

I am always mind-boggled by that mere statement. That impeachment would bring the Dems out of favor. It does'nt even make any sense. At all!

Yeah, Bush and Cheney will stonewall with all their might. So the effort to impeach might fail. It's true. But the fact is that they have been caught on camera and in news print declaring their intentions to continue right on doing whatever they as violent criminals so choose to do, going over the heads of an entire nation of people, Congress and the Constitution itself in so doing. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED??? Stonewalling is in itself a piece of evidence to be held against them.

To "beg off" based on "possible failure" is pure cowardice.

This is NOT the Clinton fallacy. This is REAL stuff and now that REAL stuff----every bit of which hurts us all and murders people abroad and at home----is ON the table, it's just hard to fathom how anybody in their right minds could put impeachment off the table.

Time for Congress to visit the psyche ward, at length? Because after all, people who are a danger to themselves or others are not allowed to be released from the psyche hospital. Rationally, cooly and clearly, how different is this situation of funding wars based on lies, refusing to impeach war criminals, etc.....from the average psychiatric "case" ? A LOT different.  Congress is injuring and murdering hundreds of thousands of people by funding an illegal war while refusing to impeach the war criminals, ie the terrorist ringleaders.

REPEAT:

We must Never ask Congress members what THeir Position Is About Anything. This is about Us, the People and it is Their Job for which they are Paid to implement that public will!

REPEAT:

Mr COnyers, I am told by a Congressional aide that you are being arm-twisted. Will you get to the real issue that is holding you back and tell us about it? Despite how furious I am, do you notice my intention to ask the people to be of help if this is true? What's REALLY going on? Please tell us. Thank you.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:05:52 PM

  (0+)

Was it just me or did I hear a tone of, "who the hell are you?" "I'm going to do whatever the hell I want, and I couldn't care less what you or any other American citizen might want".  Which is obviously what Pelosi, Reid, oh yeah, and Bush/Cheney and their cronies are all saying.

 I have given up on the federal government and am focusing my efforts on the local level.  Locally, with real people in our own communities we can enact change in environmental policies, health care, etc., and on that level organize and push upward to the federal government from there.  The whole federal government system is completely broken, protected by corporate power, corporate media, and a corrupt electoral process.  We won't fix it by using its own processes. 

by Steve Slocum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:16:12 PM

  (0+)

Last week I happened to watch Pelosi answering questions as to why impeachment is still "off the table" and she mentioned how many petitions she was receiving and the number of impeachment pins she sees on lapels as she goes through airports - and then she laughed - the women laughed at us - then she went on to explain why we were wrong ...

No one of course reminded her that she works for us.  I had the same feeling watching Conyers.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:15:44 PM

  (0+)

It is amazing what we see here:  a politico cynically and  with total disrespect to the cause dismisses the  direct question  and  those who ask the question develop a strategy to .. defend his behavior. Again, this is not to point fingers, rather to.. sob, folks.  Imagine that you have an employee and  he tells you that he does not want to do what you need because... he does not feel like it now.   Would you defend him?  Now , why is that happening  here? Because,  I guess,  some of our folks here do not feel like employers.  They feel like some strangers from the outer space.  Guess what, I am not a prophet but  be prepared- Mr. Conyers is 80 years old?   He will dance at your funeral... ( not that I want that).

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:16:41 PM

  (0+)

I'd say conyers is more like an attorney under contract with me. He has to also deal with the bar, attorney ethics and his knowledge of the law. If he says to NO to me, I don't fire him, I discuss it further and find out more about his objections. I think I took the conversation with Conyers a little bit further. We have to discuss the endgame of the impeachment and how Conyers can use it, without dealing with the concern about "failing."

Regarding the commenters' rude, nasty remarks about COnyers. There's a good likelihood he'll read this, or at least his staff. Would you really speak to him so rudely and disrespectfully because you disagree with him, and do you think it would get you anywhere.

If you think his legacy will be a negative one, you can say that without getting nasty.

Disagree with him on his position, as I do? Okay, say so, but try writing like you might have to look him in the eye and have a shot at persuading him. Why throw away your options and burn your bridges?

There's no great bravery in calling names in comments. Stick to talking about behavior and commenting on ideas and actions and you will be a more credible participant in the conversation.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:34:09 PM

  (0+)

'There's no great bravery in calling names in comments. Stick to talking about behavior and commenting on ideas and actions and you will be a more credible participant in the conversation. ' 

There  seem to be no bravery in betrayal either. Congressman  Conyers, judging from  what I have read  so far does not give a damn about who says anything about him.  And   when I wrote my responses I did not mean that I would have said that to him; no need. I was just showing the real picture as  i saw it. We are beyond disagreement with Mr. Conyers at this point- he is a traitor. With traitors  you  do not disagree, you just make a note in the book of yours.  And traitors have no ideas either.

 The impeachment of Bush   has to be performed   as a reaction of the nation to the carnage he represented. But I am not here to prove my bravery or my courage. I am here to make conclusions. Those conclusions were reflected in my  haught language- and when it comes to conclusions we all are in the same boat: Conyers won, we lost.  You may think otherwise, Rob and  who am I to stop you. But  I made my note.  Hopefully, others did too. For their sake.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:46:19 PM

  (0+)

I'm not ready to write Conyers off. He's told us not to blame Pelosi-- that's significant.

We need to push harder and show him that his fear is based on envisioning a scenario that is highly unlikely.

There's another way to think about this. If hearings are held early, and Cheney resigns, then Bush resigns, and it's, say, May, then there's a new, squeaky clean rebublican president, representing recovery, renewal, change-- and all of a sudden, the Bush presidency is behind them, with five months to go until the election. THAT could be a problem for the Dems. The ideal timing is to start investigating Cheney in March, for him to resign in June, with a replacement confirmed by July, then hearings on Bush, that start in july, are put on hold during the summer hiatus, continued in September, with the worst, most damning testimony happening in October.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 3:19:56 PM

  (0+)

"I'm not ready to write Conyers off. He's told us not to blame Pelosi-- that's significant."

i think it's significant if taken at face value and if it were the first time.

from OpEdNews in August 2007, "Despite the contentions of some critics, Conyers readily acknowledged that as chair of the judiciary, he holds the power to propel the impeachment process forward."

in other words, no one, including pelosi, is stopping him.

i can't help but wonder if his call to "not blame pelosi" is because he is trying to take some of the pressure off of her. i don't know if you saw the press conference a week ago when she was asked about impeachment, but she looked like she was about ready to crack  (in general, not about impeachment). i think he's trying to protect her from the unrelenting "nancy, put impeachment on the table" cries.  while is fine really, because i do believe we shouldn't spend so much time on her and should continue to put the pressure on the judiciary committee (and our own reps of course).

still, you did the right thing in addressing conyers and of course your approach was professional and compelling and i hope you or more people like you can continue to make direct contact with him.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:02:32 PM

  (0+)

Rob, the interests of the people of this nation are not being served -- yet we're the ones paying the bills and ultimately suffering (not necessary to describe ad infinitum).  These representatives are either going to have to take a STRONG position for lawful investigation and prosecution; or...try and run out the clock in a weak, partisan-privy way witnessed by everyone. 

 As always, it comes down to 2 --  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?  IF NOTHING, THEN FADE AWAY, NO EXCUSES...

And from the "WHO" -- Tell Me, Tell Me, WHO ARE YOU?!  WHO? WHO?

WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW?!!!

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM

  (0+)

 ROB I KNOW I AM NEW TO THIS, AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB TRYING PIN DOWN CONYERS, THANK YOU. AS I HAVE WROTE MANY TIMES HERE ,THIS GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLED BY AIPACK, CFR, TC GLOBALIST. I HEARD OF AND," ARTICLE V CONVENTION", TRY GOOGLE (WWW.FOAVC.ORG )AND SEE IF THIS COULD BE A WAY AROUND CONYERS REFUESAL TO HAVE HEARING OF IMPEACHMENT. I HOPE WHEN YOU WENT TO WASHINGTON, NOBODY SAID YOUR PAPERS PLEASE . THATS PICTURE I AM STARTING TO GET. TAKES A LOT B'S TO STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE THANK YOU AGAIN.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:31:13 PM

  (0+)

......won't save us from what is to come. It may only save one per cent of the face of american citizens in future....

...recall your very own inner feelings when you think or hear of Germans....

...let the man go....

...he too knows, it is too late, futile, of no matter, irrelevant, nearly impossible and, I already said...too late...

Yet. His honor has failed us as have all members of Congress. No blood on the floor....only overseas.

How cowardly. 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:37:04 PM

  (0+)

Personally, I felt the responses to your questions by Conyers were weak.  Impeachment is about ACCOUNTABILITY in government, period.  There was no accountabilty during the first 6 years of Republican rule.  Now Conyers appears to be saying ACCOUNTABILITY is not as important as image and the Democratic advantage in 2008.  This is just a totally unacceptable response.  If that is the case, we need a very serious housecleaning of elected officials (Democrats and Republican) who no longer understand what their function in government really is. 

Harriet Miers holds the same position as John Dean did in the Nixon administration.  What would Sam Irvine or James Baker have done had Nixon informed Dean he didn't want him to talk to Congress?  Do you really think they would have said, "well shucks, we don't want to lose and look bad?"  The public has a RIGHT TO KNOW what is and has happened in Washington, and Bush and Cheney have made that virtually impossible.  It isn't just the 935 false statements, it is the blatantly obvious misleading information that was dismissed as "bad intelligence" and then not pursued further.  It is the violation of international treaties the President is sworn to uphold.  It is the abuse of civil rights of US citizens and the faillure to uphold the US constitution, a violation of the oath of office.  It seems even to me, a neophyte of constitutional law, there is more than enough to put "IMPEACHMENT" at least ON THE TABLE instead of telling the US public it's not "OFF THE TABLE", a difference that is far more than just an issue of symantics.

I think most readers of this site would agree there has been obstruction of justice at the very least by this administration (also an impeachable offense).  To state, well we don't want to get into this and then get accused of demonizing Bush.  For god's sakes what about the far more serious concern that serious crimes have been committed and you did nothing to even try to hold anyone ACCOUNTABLE.  Do prosecutors say, "hey we don't want to prosecute this law breaker even if he may have committed serious crimes because, welll we might lose and we rather not look bad"? I encourage everyone on this board to put your pennies and dimes together and start supporting candidates for Congress who understand their role and function there.  I really don't care if the Representative is  "nice or polite" if they aren't doing their job they need to find another line of work.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:00:15 PM

  (0+)

I do so agree with the sentiment calling on the Congress to do their job. I might also say that on other issues, constituencies could be better informed, so they might articulate an intelligent sense about how a particular piece of legislation meets their interpretation of what's mandated in the U.S. Constitution. But on the matter of H.R. 799, the above comment is a fine articulation of many a constituent's sense of the constitutional matter at hand. So, yes, Mr. Conyers, DO YOUR JOB.

by Tom Chechatka (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 57 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:28:59 PM

  (0+)

I've been on YouTube.com and after not being able to play it here on OpEdNews, I can't get it to play from there either.

I just thought I would give a heads up to who posted it so that person could double check that it is still working. If it is, than it's me that has the problem and in that case, thanks for checking.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:25:25 PM

  (0+)

or, if you haven't already, try this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBuQfZfFo

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:52:40 PM

  (0+)

Rob.

That we can consider Conyers current position and motives at all is because you did, respectfully but firmly, what the mainstream media doesn't do.

One way or another you have gotten some accountability from Conyers now. You have him on the record at a time when impeachment is still possible saying that impeachment is not off the table and making very clear that he knows that he is the Chairman and he has a large part of the responsibility for what happens or does not happen at this time.

What you have done is what good citizenship and good journalism in the service of democracy should be about. Good work. I'm going to look at the evidence you've produced again to see what I think it means but wanted to give you credit where credit is due first.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:27:43 PM

  (0+)

If some highly influential Democrat were to state publicly in the main stream media what has been stated here, we would have impeachment trials. The public would demand it. However, for this to happen would require the media's attention and emphasis on this crucial Constitutional crisis. It appears that all the powers that be-- politicians and the main stream media, prefer business as usual.

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:08:17 AM

  (0+)

I did not see the statement by McGovern coming.

There is a relationship between representatives and the represented that is complex and unpredictable because the agents are people.  Some people may wade into the idea of impeachment when it looks like its going to succeed and others may only wade in when they think it is in danger of failing and then they get to thinking about the consequences.  

McGovern didn't say he thought impeachment likely but he thought that it was the right thing to do. And McGoverns statement made news. There may be others yet to come out.

I think how people feel about impeachment hearings will largely be determined by how those impeachment hearings are framed. Most Americans are not pro aggressive invasion against their countrys solemn word, most people are not pro torture.

Corporations are populated by people too. The directors are people.  What people really want to live in an America that doesn't have the rule of law? What corporation wants to have to mess around not just with business as usual but with also having to bribe Presidents for favours?  I don't think CEO's want corporations to go so far that the CEO's own children don't have a country relatively free of bribes to grow up in.   When you give the President too much power and make the unitary executive too strong you start to threaten not just the ordinary folks but the elite as well.

It was the nobles not the commoners that produced the magna carter and habeus corpus. They didn't do it for altruistic reasons.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 2:18:33 AM

  (0+)

.  .  . what the people of OpEdNews will do once George Bush and Dick Cheney leave office.  Y'all are just so thoroughly invested in an impeachment that will not happen -- and you know it won't happen -- that I just don't see what your plan for the future is. 

It's January 29th; George Bush and Dick Cheney will be out of office in 356 days.  If Mr Conyers fell in line with your wishes, the House might be ready to vote on Articles of impeachment by June.   The Congress has a long recess in August, so the Senate would delay any trial untuil September -- at  which time the presidential campaign gets ready for the stretch run.  Even if we assume that y'all could get the minimum sixteen Republicans you need for removal -- and that assumes that all of the Democrats would vote for removal, which is not guaranteed -- you are going to absolutely unite the Republican Party behind its nominee.  And that's just one impeaqchment down: you still have President Bush, who could appoint another vice president, or now President Dick Cheney.

Y'all simply lose on this one, and you know it.  Why are you wasting your time?

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:34:45 PM

  (0+)

some of us care more about the constitution and the balance of power in the federal government than party.

that it matters more that the person who sits in the executive office knows that they are not above the law, than it matters what their political stripes are.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:39:50 PM

  (0+)

regarding

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:44:50 PM

  (0+)

It won't go that way, not entirely. The hearings will wear on. Republicans will do all they can to get that vote, but Pelosi will keep the vote off the table. hearings will drege up more and more, AND MORE, AND MORE disgusting, despicable, ugly dirt-- the lies, corruption, abuse of the constitution that Cheney and Bush engaged in. Lower level staffers will roll over on higher level staffers.

As this goes on, independents will revulse in their race to distance themselves from the party of Bush. The shrinking Republican base just may do what you say and get ultra committed, when they're not reeling from the koolaid intoxication. But that base will be so reduced in size, with such a loss of independent support-- if those 16 senators DON'T make "THE WALK" to tell Bush to get the hell out in a hurry, then the Republican party may go the way of the Dodo.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:49:27 PM

  (0+)

.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:49:50 PM

  (0+)

I AGREE WHEN THEY SENT ANTHARX LETTERS IN OCT 2001, THAT PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN CONGRESS, AND I SURE EVERY TIME A CONGRESSMAN GET TO FAR OUT OF LINE SOMEONE HAS A LITTLE HEART TO HEART TALK WITH HIM TO THE FACTS OF LIFE ON THE HILL, AND MOST LIKELY AND UNDER COVER CIA, THAT NOT TRAISABLE. AND DOSEN'T HAVE TO BE ANTHRAX THE CIA WROTE THE BOOK ON CONTROLLING PEOPLE.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 2:27:53 AM

  (0+)

as you may have guessed "party" is hardly a priority for me right now, but like rob i do disagree with your assessment that this will work in the favor of the republicans.

first, doesn't your base already unite around their candidate? is there that much more room for uniting?

but, if you want to talk about dems for a second, the democratic congress has progressively (no pun intended) lost favor with its base since the '06 elections. why? because they refuse to hold the bush/cheney administration to account. if they keep this up, i can assure you that a large number will not be turning out at the polls for them come november. the majority of americans (all parties) think this administration has abused their powers. it's congress' job to respond accordingly. they will be rewarded for it and they will pay the price if they don't.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 5:29:08 PM

  (0+)

Assuming that you don't think it's too late for impeachment already -- which you apparently don't -- at what date would you think impeachment becomes simply impractical?  April?  July?  January 15, 2009?

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 4:36:54 PM

  (0+)

If they are still in office on January 16th and impeachment proceedings haven't begun, than we'll have bigger problems to worry about.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 5:29:20 PM

  (0+)

from Dana and so your answer begs another.

To Dana:  

I think impeachment matters because its the only legal recourse that leaves the possibility of citizenship, of the views of the ordinary person, mattering. Because America is like an experiment to see if citizens are capable of sharing some of the burdens of governing themselves.  I don't care much about Bush and Cheney as people I care about the loss of confidence in the rule of law.  When it is clear that the game is fixed people stop playing by the rules. When it is clear that the rule of law is not prevailing then people revert to the rule of the jungle.  In the time of Bush and Cheney, despite that the United States had signed treaties with the rest of the world that rule out the use of aggressive invasions and torture, the United States has been involved in launching an aggressive war and in torturing and the whole world has seen it through the media.  

The citizens of the United States are in danger of carrying the mark of Cain.

If you support illegal aggressive invasions and torture merely because you can't be bothered to impeach and correct your error then you invite aggressive invasions and torture in response. You are modelling behaviour that the rest of humanity has shown through long bloody history it is more then capable of emulating.   The rest of humanity can give in to our dark side too. You Americans are modelling the dark side to us and we like you have only just managed barely to set it aside and you are daring us to fight you again and daring us to kill you again.  Your genes are our genes, your bloodthirstiness ours. You desire for power is our desire for power. We are like you and yet we have shown restraint because you showed restraint because we thought it worthwhile to give cooperation a go. To give peace a chance.  But we cannot show restraint for ever. You are merely an aggregation of 300 million and we are billions and all the tools of science and the lessons of history are at our disposal just as they are at yours and just as the United Nations may have been our only way to head off wars impeachment may now be your, America's, that is the ordinary people of America's, last f*cking chance before the rest of the world starts hitting you with the deceit and dishonor that you have directed at us. 

I have a confession frankly I like to fight. Its in my genes. If I can't have peace with honor then I want the bloody heads of my enemies and their stupid thralls rolling at my feet and if I'm going to die anyway then I can think of few less satisfying ways to do it then in piling up the bodies of the deserving around me as I go down. That, for a time would at least be living. It is the possibility of better that restrains me not the desire to be a thrall.  

To Kevin :

Why do you say the 16th of January? I get that the swearing in of the next President would be on the 20th but not why you would say the 16th? You are a sensible person, but young enough to not know everything that might be relevant, so I'm interested in why? 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:13:28 PM

  (0+)

Good try Rob, but to get a definite answer from a career politician is like trying to catch the proverbial greased pig. There is a time for diplomacy and a time for reading the riot act. Human beings are being tortured and shot down dead,poisoned with DU etc. etc. It is obvious Conyers has outlived his usefullness. The status quo provides free domestic help and all the other little percs that make it hard for a guy to rock the boat. Maybe bushco has some photos of John in a compromising situation, we may never know the real reason why he has thrown a monkey wrench in our process of government.  You are an educated gentleman Rob, If I had a one on one with the old man I would have been arrested.

Conyers may have been in DC before flush toilets, but theres an old saying, one aw sh_t wipes out a thousand attaboys. Conyers is like the little Dutch boy, only he didnt put his finger in the dike and everybody is dying.

Let me borrow a phrase from a popular South American president that fits Conyers and all others that put politics before honor, "triste peon del imperio"

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 5:55:59 PM

  (0+)

Rob and friends

I respectfully want to say, Rob, that while I fully agree with you that the thing to do is to flush out the questions and work with them, that some things are also not about agreement or disagreement.

It's about life and death.

Anyone sitting in Guantanamo subject to "Torture", better known as murder in the absence of actual death, with no access to legal counsel and no habeas corpus, would sure have a tough time with your statement that people don't have to "agree" with Mr. Conyers.

Any army soldier suffering psychological wounds for life, who have had their brains blown out, etc all for the sake of a lie, would surely disagree that it is all just a matter of "opinion".

What about my friend who was arrested from her own home without warrant or probable cause under the Patriot Act, accused of stealing her own life's savings? She was told that her money belonged to someone else with her own name, who coincidentally also had her same social security number and address. Why? Because she is a *peaceful* activist.

What about the survival of free speech?
The knock on the door of the FBI at 4am? That's the Patriot Act for you which Congress voted for not once, but twice.

Is all that a matter of opinion and agreeing or disagreeing?

Anyone who says that, even while I fully respect your work Rob, I Have to say that I vehemently disagree.

This is about life and death. Survival of the planet is at stake (nuclear war threatened by Putin against the USA in retaliation for our first preemptive strike, more wars threatened/planned by war criminals in the White House, global warming, etc READ: The war on terror or the war OF terror poses an international threat).

This is about government agents DUBBING activists-----like you and me-----
terrorists under the Patriot Act or the Thought Crimes Bill and being tried as terrorists-----with all that implies-----by government agents themselves. It's about arrests from our own homes without warrant or probable cause by the FBI agent's own unilateral whim.

I am too angry to be cool when I post about this. Sorry.
Anyone who doesn't understand that doesnt' have a heart.

And anyone who blocks impeachment doesn't have a heart.

Now I can understand if impeachment signals the threat that two war criminals will start a war in retaliation: THAT would make sense as explanation for stalling impeachment.

Even so, don't permit such people to stay in office.

Expose the threat for what it is. Talk. LEt the public know. THat is protection right there.

Then handcuff the violent criminals. Because that's just what they are. Non-stop.

I have zero patience for anybody who not only puts up with this, who "professionally" and "Sweetly" and "Softly" and "politely" allows murder and the usurpation of free speech (READ: Endangerment of the citizens to being jailed as terrorists).

How "polite", "Sweet" and "professional" is it to allow such things to go unchecked?

I much prefer people giving The Finger and ranting and cussing. But who are sincere in their statement: SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT!!!

That is much more polite and kind, in the long run. That's my thinking. And I mean it. Noone will ever talk me into backing down. Not for all the tea in China. They can go to hell with their sweet "politeness". Geez!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:05:45 PM

  (0+)

first and foremost, and then it's a matter of right and wrong, and a matter of the future and what we will accept as a society.

If these guys aren't impeached, we've lowered the bar for all future presidents and members of Congress. We've lowered the bar for our entire nation.

Thanks Kathryn. Well said!

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:52:04 PM

  (0+)

There comes a time when all else fails you grab a 2X4 and swing ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM

  (0+)

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee [from 1973 to 1981] during proceedings toward Nixon's impeachment. She coauthored the 1973 special-prosecutor statute, and cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush."

Yesterday Elilzabeth Holtzman wrote an article entitiled, "Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney" in the Philadelphia Inquirer. She listed the arguments used by those who do not support impeachment and then debunked them one by one.

Here is an excerpt that includes her very rational and logical reasons FOR impeachment:

"But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:

Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

This value is again asserting itself in grassroots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties, and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment. More state legislatures would have acted except for pressure from Washington. Many polls show a majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13 American Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office), and slightly less than a majority support impeaching Bush.

Stonewalling such widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to feel their concerns about upholding the Constitution are being ignored. Only a serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law."

It is sad that Conyers lacks her courage and commitment to uphold the Constitution. Conyers may assume the attitude that he is smarter  than Rob, but he certainly is not smarter than Rep. Holtzman in my opinion.

by michal54 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:21:29 PM

  (0+)

 Good job, Rob, too bad you interviewed Methusela. This conversation....if that's what you want to call it, is exactly why they should take peoples driving privleges away at 60, along with their privelege to hold any office of responsibility more important than Chief Librarian. It's good to know that impeachment isn't off the table, but does he even remember which table he left it on? I don't know what you think you heard,but I heard a lot of patronizing and senility.

by Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:45:32 PM

  (0+)

Fact is, engaged active older people have brains that function like 20 year olds-- research shows. I didn't see an iota of reduced brain function, and never have, any of the times of met with him. If I were you, I'd check my "filters" and adjust them.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:40:18 PM

  (0+)

Well, that's good news Rob. And I think Mr. Conyers knows there is no rush to impeachment. First people need to understand that time has no bearance on the process. In fact we can still impeach Harry Truman. Consider that a President served 2 terms and at the end of his term in his last month he did egregious crimes to the Nation, waging a lying War, and killing thousands of innocent people. Are we to believe that because there is no time left, we can't impeach? How idiotic. Of course impeachment is always on the table throughout time.

It is getting people educated about this. Think of it here we are in 2008, and still have not had a Black President. Think maybe Conyers is waiting to see how Obama comes out? There is only 41 black congressmembers to a 435 membership, and the only senator is Barack. Pretty scant and disgraceful that so few black Americans serve in Government. But Obama has come out against impeachment. Think maybe Conyers is following Obama's anti-impeachment? I think that is the issue.  And if this is the reason which I think is, it goes to prove this race is about race.

Conyers choices are to go for impeachment or against Obama who is anti-impeachment and risk the chastisment of his black constituency. It can be tough for him to lose his real friends.  Then again he would be doing something that is really necessary to do, and gain much appreciation from the white establishment who is against the crimes of Bush and Cheney.

Now if he holds out and Obama seems clear to be nominated  on the Democratic Ticket, still posturing as anti-impeachment to gain unsuspecting Republicans to get him into office, and Obama decides to support impeachment, we now have Obama caught in a lie, because he originally said he was against Impeachment. This could be detrimental in the process, and create the impression that a lying President can now implement Impeachment. It would not hold water.

Conyers if he really wants to end racism and get blacks into Government the very black representatives need to support the truth. That truth allegiance gains respect, and we can begin to appreciate black representatives who really support the people, not the color of race.

He needs to forget the Obama tactic, and get on with the business. Cheney and Bush will not be off the hook if they resign.  Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about to witness history changing when we finally get a successful badly needed Impeachment. It is necessary not just for America but to bring to order and Justice that the past has created, from before Harry Truman to now in the Bush Administration.

If you have any questions simply read this inspiring article in the need for Impeachment and why it is necessary. It must go forward just as the sun rises, and the Congress meets.

see link here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dom_jerm_071221_impeachment_phobia_o.htm

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:51:35 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Kall, I have a feeling that your high regard for Rep. Conyers and your access to him might be clouding your judgement.

Conyers dismissiveness for immediate impeachment hearings simply does wash. One could make a case that there are crimes as far back as before bush took his pledge to office that were reasons enough to indict him, so to say that after all that's come down since that we have to wait another day, simply doesn't cut it.

The excuses I heard, are just that excuses, there was nothing of substance. The elusive "they" who would use impeachment against "us" if it failed? If the "they" are the disgraced republican party, who the hell cares? Even if it failed - which is highly unlikely given the magnitude and depth  of their crimes - who would give a damn what "they" said or did? I mean what the ... "we" are the "us" and "we", or at least the majority of "us" want impeachment hearings yesterday. Now, correct me if I'm wrong,  but isn't Conyers suppose to work for "us"? So who the hell is he to give us some reason he can't explain for not doing what we want? "There's a reason for ...", well, okay than, give it to us! We're not children. We can handle it. But for God's sake quit treating us like children!

I know it's easy to sit in retrospect and criticize on how you should of confronted him when these false leaders were thrown out, but again that is what can happen when in the presents of power. For sure you did a good job as far as it goes, but it wasn't good enough.

Look, some of us were around for Nixon and it didn't take that long, nor did the world come to an end, "they" didn't demonize "us" when Nixon was called to the carpet. All of us were around for Clinton and the republicans didn't become demonized going after him or lose any elections. So why all of a sudden are these phony arguments, framed mostly by republican talking heads, being taken as gospel by democratic leaders? Please answer that.

Sorry, if this reads with anger, but, damn it, I'm angry. And sitting back here we may have a better view of the forest, and we see it burning as firetrucks remain parked in their firehouses, and none of it makes sense.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:12:19 PM

  (0+)

the fact is, it did take a long time with nixon. And the dems were much stronger then in the congress. I was there too.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:42:47 PM

  (0+)

I am confused.  I too was there during the Nixon impeachment.

Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

by michal54 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:51:04 AM

  (0+)

wheras Cheney and the neocons behind Bush seem to have come into the administration meaning deliberately to test the will of the people of America over the Constitution. And that is why impeachment is so important to keep (or restore) America as the America of "we the people" rather than as "them the unruly children of authoritarian neocon fathers".

Nixon as I understand him was a more tragic and less deliberately and premeditatively ruthless figure.   The charges against Nixon were politically simpler and Nixon's party was more willing to cut him lose perhaps because he was only one.  

What Conyers may be wrestling with is the potentially difficult logistics of a potential impeachment twofer. Bush and Cheney. I got that from Rob's interview. I think Conyers is worried that its a twofer or its nothing because of the neocon group politics and that a twofer would be very hard politically. 

What Wexler has put in front of Conyers goes to Cheney, it doesn't address Bush. But strategically Conyers must know that moves on Cheney alone would leave the White House firing propaganda shots into the media for all its worth.

And moving on Bush and Cheney together isn't something that there are precedents for.

Personally I am disappointed that Kucinich's impeachment articles against Bush did not get put to the Congress as had been previously planned because I think they would have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee in the same way. And then it might have been more sensible to purse both impeachments together.

Cheney alone would not be enough. Bush ALONE might be enough because Cheney would go down with Bush.

In my opinion, Cheney as President couldn't be much more dangerous than he is now as Vice President. He wouldn't have a hope of being elected President from the Vice President position. And with Bush being taken on in impeachment hearings I don't think Cheney could do some of things that people fear he would do, like start a war with Iran, because the chain of command would know that the President (and Cheney by association) were now facing Congress and the people over overreaching and breaching the Constitution.

Every American serviceman and women and all the elected representatives and officeholders know and take oaths relating to the Constitution. With Bush under impeachment, Cheney would have the Joint Chiefs and everyone else thinking very carefully about any orders he tried to give them that looked unconstitutional.  

I am starting to be of the view that the impeachment effort should perhaps be directed more directly now at the President and the commander in chief who decided to decide more than he was allowed to decide and usurped powers not given him under the constitution.  For the aggressive illegal invasion of Iraq and for torture.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM

  (0+)

That's it Rob? So, because it might take too long we should let the criminals go? You are for impeachment - right? Because it sounds to me like you're now defending the case against it. Or maybe just your good buddy's lame excuses for not moving forward.

Enough! It's just plain enraging that public servants act anything but like public servants but dictate  to us instead. Again - why won't he tell us why the delay? What are those "reasons" he can't talk about? What are we, too stupid to understand? "Run along now, little citizen, we have important work to do", well would you please tell us what's more important than upholding the Constitution and rule of law? Is he waiting for the "right time"? The time was "right" a long time ago.

Again, I'm out of patience. It's way past time we impeached. You know it, we know it and Conyers knows it, but for some reason we can't know about it's not being done.

Rob, we know you want to see the right thing done. But, please, the next time you talk to Rep. Conyers would you take some of the anger expressed here with you and in your own intelligent and professional manner express it strongly to him when you do? You in many ways, through this site, through your access to power you are our voice. Many here are expressing the same anger and frustration I'm exhibiting - we can't all be wrong.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:02:40 AM

  (0+)

as well, because it made a big difference to me to see the video after reading the transcript.

Conyers' statement, "Well then there must be some compelling reason that I'm not doing it right now," struck me much more on the video than it did even in red boldface. It was clear he doesn't want to say what that compelling reason might be, right now, and we'll just have to trust him that it's there. After talking to him, Dennis Kucinich delayed presenting his articles of impeachment against Bush instead of doing so yesterday. That tells me something too.

One thing that came to mind while reading this is that in the Nixon impeachment there were big breaks, such as the tapes, which were almost like finding a signed confession, and of course Deep Throat, who as it turns out was high up in the FBI.

This would not likely be as easy as impeaching Nixon, and I doubt anyone who was involved in that would say that impeaching him was all that easy.

Of course that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, and that Americans shouldn't insist that it be done. But it may be more a question of timing than anything else. I can wait, as long as I know the appropriate thing will be done, that justice and the nation will be served in the end.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:16:13 PM

  (0+)

 i watched the video and personally it doesn't change anything for me. regarding,

"Conyers' statement, "Well then there must be some compelling reason that I'm not doing it right now," struck me much more on the video than it did even in red boldface. It was clear he doesn't want to say what that compelling reason might be, right now, and we'll just have to trust him that it's there."

i hate to be put a damper on any enthusiasm around this statement and understand i am continuing to work and press hard for impeachment including lobbying conyers, but...he said the exact damn thing to my face in august. and, he has said it to many others. when pressed about it, the most he could come up with was that fox news would have a field day with it if impeachment "failed."

i would be more than happy to be proven wrong on this and my other comments above, but there is nothing new being said here. nothing that he hasn't said to impeachment activists throughout the country since he became chair. show me something you find new and refreshing and i can pretty much guarantee i'll find the same or very similar quote elsewhere by him.

but, none of it relieves us of our duty as citizens to keep up the pressure. so, if you haven't done it yet (or lately), take a few minutes out of your day tomorrow and phone/fax members of the judiciary including conyers. let him know what you expect of him. ask him the questions that are being posed here. judiciary contacts

and just to be clear my intentions for pointing these things out aren't to try to prove any one wrong, but because i worry that people are just going to sit back thinking that conyers has some plan and that we just need to trust him on it. even if you think that he's not going to move if the pressure isn't on.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:37:58 PM

  (0+)

Rob, you can write him off.

Conyers has more than enough. He has already tabulated his articles of impeachment; you can find them in the dumbster on z street (the dark alley behind Congress).

While he was doing his tabulations, in 2005, I had finished my investigative work and thought the guy is great, let me send him what I found; which I did around June of 2005. I did not hear a single word from his office; not a question, no a single need for clarification.

More than a year later, and after many attempts, I get a hold a fairly important guy whose organization represents about 2 million people. I knew he had direct contact with Conyers since the organization is very strong in Detroit.

This is what the president of the organization sent to me in an email reply:

This guy would not have emailed me such a response unless he either spoke with Conyers or with a very Sr. aid who can speak on his behalf. That was back in February of 2007, almost a year later now, can you guys tell me where Conyers stands.

What we are talking about is the material in the following article
"The Crime Behind the Criminal Wars!"

So, believe me, what he said is basically good for sound bites and keeps you guys at bay; nothing more.

I say, keep the heat up, keep the eel squirming.

Best,
Maher Osseiran
www.mydemocracy.net

by Maher Osseiran (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:41:41 PM

  (0+)

The most important part of that interview to me is:

Conyers-"they campaigned against the Democrats saying two things, Rangel will raise taxes if the Democrats ran and Conyers would impeach Bush.

**** So he is ADMITTING that they (the Dummicraps) are AFRAID TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION because the busheep used this as one of their campaign themes in the 2006 election??? WTF? Apparently he has forgotten the fact that the busheep LOST in 06?
 

Conyers-"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."

Furthermore, it is an admission that the dummicraps are afraid of the busheep i.e. they are a bunch of pussies who are more concerned about winning the 2008 election than doing what is right for America by upholding the U.S. Constitution./impeaching the war criminals....FU** THAT BULLSH*T!  This interview is basically a confirmation of everything I (and many others) have said about the dummicraps all along....They have NO BALLS and are only concerned about keeping their jobs!  More proof that The Duopoly is "The Problem".  It's pretty pathetic and sad.

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:53:18 PM

  (0+)

Rob, thanks for that great footage and conversation with John Conyers. 

Nancy Pelosi undermined our entire democracy by "taking Impeachment off the table".  There was a movement underway, and she took a lot of energy out of that movement.  No Congress person, representing the people, has that right, ever.  I sincerely hope she loses her seat in 2008 and plan on assisting in that.

That said, her repeated mantra was echoed by the right, the left and replayed in the MSM until the national discussion became minimized. We have ceased to have open dialog and debate.  This forum, and others like it, help, but the MSM still can silence discussion simply by ignoring millions of people - it's like the impeachment movement is not happening.  Maybe I'm naive, but being involved, talking to people, being plugged into the internet and discussion and reading - it astounds me how by simply ignoring major issues.  By failing to do their job and cover them - the MSM is powerful enough to make them literally disappear.  Impeachment is just one example of that.

This country put the democrats in power in 2006 [granted it was a slim majority] but there was a shift in national conscience - we began to remember who stole the 2000 election and that dumbo was selected by our Supreme Court as President.  We were shocked and awed by 9/11 and all of a sudden we're waving flags, lighting candles and singing hail to the chief.

Had that new Pearl Harbor never happened, dumbo would have been a 4 year lame duck and out of all of our lives without the national carnage.  

Impeachment was on the lips of Americans.  It is precisely why Democrats took control of the house in 2006, despite the MSM.  It looks like in 2008 we will see that strengthen significantly [barring more Republican voter fraud or more stolen elections and more MSM mind control].

No credible movement has been made on Impeachment.  This so called democracy is a sham and more and more people are waking up to that fact.  

The people fail to be represented - their issues don't matter.  Corporations get whatever they want.  The robber barons are in the White House and the rest of us... hold on - its going to be a very bumpy ride.  They got there's and the rest of us - are set up for the fall...  

someone give me hope.  I've lost mine.

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 584 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 9:59:08 PM

  (0+)

by Gary Boutell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM

  (0+)

way to go man! You got him to admit on camera what we have all known all along! Great job!

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:00:20 PM

  (0+)

A PROFESSIONAL politician telling the people why they don't understand. Excuse me while I ckoke back my rage.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:18:01 PM

  (0+)

It's hard to speak softly and be sweet when one is OUTRAGED.  And, if you are not OUTRAGED, you really aren't paying attention.  I am all out of patience with just continuing to push.  Bush is going to be on an island somewhere, laughing his butt off, over his ability to pull the wool over everyones' eyes. 

by Crystal Purcell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:31:43 PM

  (0+)

he may not be on that island, but in paraguay where allegedly 100,000 acres were purchased on his behalf in 2006.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:41:01 PM

  (0+)

Rob, just saw your interview while visiting AfterDowningStreet.org and was so impressed.  You managed to pin Rep Conyers with arrow-to-the-heart questions that I believe will keep him questioning himself on his hesitation about impeachment.  This is my first visit to your site and I look forward to returning soon. 

by via (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:48:50 PM

  (0+)

Before even starting, I wish to say that, yes, I'm for OBAMA: (was for Kucinich before...).   John Edwards isn't bad, either...  But Obama does inspire, EXCEPT:

this is what Obama, A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER, said in June 2007 about impeachment (despite the fact that the Center for Constitutional Rights--comprised of very competent Constiutional lawyers--came out for impeachment, long ago...):

Obama impeachment opinion

Obama says that impeachment should not be used as "political tool"?!   Isn't NOT impeaching--i.e., the obstruction of justice--being used as a "political tool"?!    WOW!

Okay, in voting Obama, again I vote for the "lesser offensive" of the manipulating politicians!   Obama is less offensive than most of the others....but when I read this, I was apalled!   (He could have at least given better "reasons" than to twist it backwards and make it like impeachment was "wrong" in this case!!   WOW!) 

Yes, maybe Conyers is not only "protecting" Dem chances at gaining the presidency, but in fact, Obama's chances too....maybe.

OR:   just what IS it that Conyers is hiding.  

I agree, saying impeachment is not "off the table" -- is not saying it is truly ON the table.    Dancing Conyers.....running in circles conyers...... Come on, Conyers, how can you sleep at night knowing all the people cheneybush killed, based on a LIE?!   

Comeon Conyers!

I will send my comment and all the comments on this site -- to the three e-mail addresses I have for Conyers, Pelosi, et al.!

So close....so close....to getting the truth via subpoenas HAVING TO BE HONORED via the only way:   IMPEACHMENT Hearings, not waste-of-time "non-impeachment" hearings!

Earlier I wrote re impeachment vs. "non-impeachment" hearings....and STRIKING in order to force impeachment:

========

julieanna wrote:  (doesn't easily duplicate here.... but essentially it is concerning IMPEACHING OR WE STRIKE!   Go to:   www.PledgeToImpeach.org

Long comment I wrote somewhere on this site in response to an impeachment article just this week...!    (not familiar enough w/this site to find; and my copy won't duplicate correctly here).

================

In response to these great articles: 

by David Swanson of www.AfterDowningStreet.org --

nadler_is_blocking impeachment

and

no more investigations! :

and

by former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, Esq. and Prosecutor... in on the Nixon Impeachment... who is calling for impeachment (see her book at: www.ImpeachBushBook.com )

and this article 

Judiciary_Committee_should_move_to_impeach 

and==== response is respectfully requested from office of Rep. Robert Wexler (Eric Johnson, Chief of Staff, or Mr. Wexler himself)!----:

   ( posted at www.OpEdNews.com    in response to above-cited  article, "No More Investigations"  ) :    

www.PledgeToImpeach.org ! 

IMPEACH or we STRIKE! - growing option:  

Please consider and act with  "IMPEACH or we STRIKE!"--? i.e., www.PledgeToImpeach.org !!!      

==============================

[snip]

by 2yoginijewels (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:50:14 PM

  (0+)

John Conyers reminds me of my Uncle Bob,a farmer and an expert hunter ,a slow confident steady Eddie. It's hard to believe that all the heads of the trophy bucks on his wall actually came from Bucks county, but they did. Knowing Uncle Bob,I know he didn't go off half cocked on the first day of hunting season and firing away so he could grab any old buck. See he actually started hunting well before hunting season while riding that ole tractor. He'd spot that prize buck during the summer and for a buck to grow that big around here he had to be pretty wiley not to get bagged, year after year. When hunting season came it was a game of wits and to hang that prize buck on your wall earned you the envy of all the hot shot hunters in town until the next hunting season. The hot shots often shot at the first chance they got or winged him and had to trail them for hours ,following a trail of blood. Or without good front aim and a clean shot they could hit their prize buck in the face and ruin their trophy buck they intended to show up Uncle Bob with.

Now Bob knew his prey like the back of his hand  from watching his M.O. for months ,not like some factory worker / hunter who couldn't read the terrain, didn't know the ins and outs of the wind carrying their scent which the older bucks could pick up a mile away and didn't get out early enough to be in place when it was time to squeeze off one shot. But Bob ,year in and year out ,out smarted the biggest  buck that let it's guard down for a split second and with a clean shot Bob ,as they say, dropped that prize buck in it's tracks. I guess Bob, from years of growing tomatoes you consumed  as Campbell's Tomato soup ,learned there's a time for every thing and you just can't do things out of step with the elements.

Though those prize bucks high on the wall thought they were quite some studs in the end  Bob was already scoping out next years smart ass wall hanging. And there ain't nobody out there that wants it over more than me but all good things in time, I being old enough to have lived through the last one that seemed never ending also.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM

  (0+)

I think Uncle Bob has his pants down around his ankles in the Bushes unloading his bowels. Clearly Uncle Bob doesn't even have one trophy hanging in his living room, that being the US has never had a successful Impeachment, and 3 button impeachment bucks backfired as he gushed diarrhea brown splatters in his longJohns, being disgusted aimed haphazardly and shot a damn chirping chickadee, off a nearby limb.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:02:55 AM

  (0+)

Does everyone play poker with their cards face up on the table? This is an end game for all the marbles.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 5:58:41 AM

  (0+)

Hey Mr.

This is no card game, and we don't gamble. Got it!

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:55:07 PM

  (0+)

Good for you Rob.  It's gotten so bad that black ops always creeps into my thoughts.

by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 3:45:15 AM

  (0+)

The article brings to mind what Kerry said when he ran his losing campaign: that he would not bring something up in the Legislature that he could not be assured would pass.

What kind of leaders do we have in Congress now who have to be assured of victory before they apply effort? The answer is painfully obvious: we have people more focused on their self-interests than the good of the nation.

I am running for the Senate in Maine. It is my clear intention to fire Congress and replace all those who won't step up and do the right thing with people who will. There are plenty of choices this campaign season. Why else are the people who are running for reelection sensitive on this issue?

 That answer is also clear: because they know what the people want; they are just not inclined to put their career on the line. Does this qualify them to stay in office? I think not.

by laurie dobson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 4:18:26 AM

  (0+)

I assume some of you have put some thought into what would be the grounds for impeaching Bush/Cheney. What would they be; leading the country to war under false pretenses, illegal renditions and torture, illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping? Is that enough, or are there more?

I assume John Conyers has put some thought into this, but I haven't read his book so I'm working in the dark here. But just a thought from an objective, interested observer. Do you think you can really prove the high crimes and misdemeanors listed above? I'm betting you can't prove torture or eavesdropping since if they've occurred they've been conducted by intelligence organizations, and intel guys don't usually talk. Your best bet might be with regards to the Iraq war, but that road isn't easy either.

You'd have to prove that the Bush Administration knowingly misrepresented the relevant Iraqi WMD intelligence data. To do that, again, you'd have to find someone to talk. George Tenet knows for sure, but he received the Medal of Freedom from Bush for his troubles, so I don't think you'd get him to squeal. What does that leave you with? I'll tell you what, an empty hat. And one that I don't think even John Conyers could pull a rabbit out of.

If Conyers had a strong case against Bush, I think Pelosi and Reid would have gone forward with this last year. But now with the elections approaching, it's really too late. The case is weak, the timing is off, elections are right around the corner, etc. There is no time left for a fishing expedition. And if you can't prove high crimes, then the Republicans will beat you over the head with this every chance they get until November. 

I think the impeachment issue is a loser for the Dems. Proving a guy lied under oath is a lot easier than proving the above high crimes. Without inside information, you got nothing. And I don't think Bush's house of cards would fall nearly as easily as some of you wish to believe. That's why Pelosi pushed it off the table, and it ain't coming back on.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 5:20:13 AM

  (0+)

you don't know by now or can't take our word for it go to www.afterdowningstreet.org for your info. it's all out there. the evidence is already laid out. some even openly confessed - bush admitted to warrantless wiretapping 30 times. as far as the rest that you mention, yes, absolutely the evidence is readily found and it has piled up since even conyer's two books.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:07:42 AM

  (0+)

For the draft articles against Cheney go to wexlerwantshearings and check out the side tab headed Text of Kucinich's Bill.

Actually even at this stage Sam your question about grounds is better asked than not asked. And if you have doubts about whether the grounds are substantive enough with respect to Cheney then I for one would like to hear them. I read an earlier draft and was pretty underwhelmed myself to be honest. I am not interested in a witch trial. I'd want Cheney and Bush to get a fair trail.  

My own interest in this impeachment comes from observing the run up to the Iraq war. It was then that I read the UN Charter and discovered where it fit in within the context of United States law. As a United States Senate ratified treaty the UN Charter is part of the supreme law of the United States because your US Constitution incorporates it (all Senate ratified treaties) as such. This isn't really debateable amongst constitutionally literate people but the fact is that most people haven't had a good reason to become constitutionally literate and so haven't been. And I was not different.

I am confident that there is a sufficent prima facie case against Bush for impeachment because the invasion of Iraq was illegal the moment the order was given to invade and Bush had to know it was. The Authorisation to Use force given by Congress did not include an Authorisation to BREAK UN resolutions, it rather gave the President to power to enforce them. (A necessary step to give him a full range of options if one accepts as I did at that stage that Iraq may well have had WMDs and may in fact have had to be disarmed by the UN). What I don't know is to what extent he was breaking the law recklessly or to what extent he was breaking it with a bona fide mistaken opinion that Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction. The recent report of the 935 lies suggests (to say the least) that the deception was deliberate.

That an illegal war has occurred is clear enough from reading the text of the UN Charter, the Authorisation to use military force of October 2002, and resolution 1441. That torture has occurred is clear enough from the photos from Abu Graib and from the reports of water boarding. Bush is dodging the torture charge by claiming the power to reinterpret the meaning of words.

When I say clear enough, I don't mean proven by all shadow of a doubt, I mean clear enough that there is in the eyes of reasonable people a serious case to be answered. Torture and aggressive invasions carried out as part of a war on terror (itself pretty absurd) remove the distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys. Thousands of people have died. The consequences are serious. It is because of that the impeachment hearings are warranted.

These aren't the only reasons but they are for me the main reasons. Torture and illegal invasions should not become an acceptable part of US Presidential behaviour - not when they are prohibitted by treaty. When Americans break those sort of agreements they undermine the basis of confidence in the rule of law not just in America but around the world.

I'm Australian. Why the heck would I want to support torturers and aggressive invaders against terrorists? Truth is torture and aggressive invasions backed by the US and unrepudiated are more terrifying than planes being flown into buildings. State terrorism is more of a concern than Al Quaida.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:56:05 AM

  (0+)

glad to hear you guys are pulling out of iraq - good on you!

again, if people want to see the evidence please go to the link below. wexler has a few things laid about, but it is limited. go to www.afterdowningstreet.org and scroll down and look in the left hand column to Key Documents and there are a slew of links below that you will find helpful.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:09:12 AM

  (0+)

Clinton will drive republicans to the polls in droves and cause many democrats to stay home. Obama won't get past inherent bigotry we have in this country, every red-neck in the land will crawl out from under their rocks to defeat him.

If Clinton (likely nominee) can over come her baggage and become POTUS the corporations get someone that's in there pocket. Or course if she's defeated whatever republican gets in makes them happy too. So the corporations win and we lose - yet again.

So I wouldn't worry about the elections. Consider them lost already. Let's at least try while we can to do something about righting the wrongs. The law has been broken. There is more than enough evidence and more will turn-up once procedures start. The bottom line is you don't leave a burglar in the house waiting for him to leave, you get rid of him ASAP. We have burglars in the house.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 9:31:25 AM

  (0+)

It will come on, because there is no other choice. Proof? They/you want proof? How about the thousands of innocent people killed in Iraq, kids, parents, grandmothers, and fathers, by the American Military? How are innocent people criminals supporting Saddam? The Bush people are going on.saying .."Is it better without Saddam, or better if he was still in power?" That premise has nothing to do with the fact in how they got rid of him.

If a hostage taker was in a Bank with 100 people threatening to kill them if authorities did not give him what he wanted, what would Bush do? He would bomb the entire Bank and kill everyone.! Are you trying to tell me he is a responsible Statesman?

Are you trying to tell me its not wrong that before the hostage taker was able to committ his threat, Bush did before him, making Bush the murderer not the hostage-taker. So this gives Bush immunity from killing innocent people?

Bush is a murderer, along with Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell, and their lackey damsel Condi Rice.

There is all the proof and grounds needed. In fact so much proof, that its clear why have a trial, we all know they are guilty......that's how much proof we have, Mr. Sam Adams.

Impeachment will go forward, whether they have a say in it or not.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:48:28 PM

  (0+)

You're right, and right now there's not a 2/3 majority in the Senate likely to vote for impeachment. I think that Conyers isn't stalling for lack of backbone. Look at his track record, and his backbone is clear. He's stalling because he doesn't want to start this at a time when it's impossible to succeed.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 2:48:06 PM

  (0+)