 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 14, 2009 at 00:38:34
Promoted to Primary Headline on 1/14/09: by David Swanson Page 1 of 4 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
3
1
1
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has released a lengthy new report that updates his previous report originally released in 2005 documenting Bush and Cheney's crimes and impeachable offenses. The new report recommends that the Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel, even while making other recommendations that could delay or prevent prosecutions (including creating a bipartisan commission to spend a year and a half looking at the crimes and potentially immunizing criminals). The report includes 47 recommendations, some better than others, and has a tendency to ask the next president to ignore bad laws while offering that Congress might pass better laws "if necessary." The report takes up some new topics not addressed in the old one, but largely covers familiar ground, with one glaring exception: it virtually ignores what had previously been a major focus, the war. The lies that launched the war receive a few pages toward the end. Over the past three years, a great many people have lobbied Conyers to impeach Bush and Cheney. I've worked with him and his staff, been arrested protesting in his office, and everything in between. Conyers includes in his new report a foreword that amounts to a seven-page letter to disappointed impeachment advocates. After listing some of the most serious abuses of power imaginable, Conyers writes: Many think these acts rise to the level of impeachable conduct. I agree. I have never wavered in my belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nation’s history, and the more we learn the truer that becomes. This is new for Conyers to be saying this publicly in a formal report. Just as his new report maintains a pretended uncertainty as to whether crimes have been committed, his past reports and statements have maintained a pretended uncertainty as to whether impeachable offenses had been committed. Given that most of the offenses discussed are statutory crimes and that Conyers now admits to the impeachability of the guilty parties, the new pretense is shaky. But if, years from now, Conyers says that he has never wavered from his belief that Bush and Cheney were criminals, it will be appropriate to point out the novelty. Conyers continues:
Some ardent advocates of impeachment have labeled me a traitor – or worse – for declining to begin a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee. While I reject that particular criticism, ...
I recall suggesting that Conyers might have "sold-out", after which most of his staff refused to speak to me. I'm sure someone did call him a traitor, and I can't imagine what's worse than that. Perhaps someone said that he was complicit in the death of 1.3 million Iraqis. That's pretty bad. But that charge would not be baseless. We had a situation in which a majority of Americans wanted impeachment, a majority of Conyers' constituents (including his wife) wanted impeachment, 100 cities passed resolutions demanding impeachment, impeachment resolutions were introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the chairman of that committee believed the offenses were "among the most impeachable in our nation's history," the charges included the launching of the war on Iraq, and the chairman refused to act. It's possible that his actions would have failed in the House or the Senate. It's possible that his actions, whether failing or succeeding, would have had some other negative consequence. But the fact was that he refused to try, and as many of us read the Constitution that was a failure of duty.
The frustration citizens felt with Chairman Conyers was amplified by the fact that he had a book in the bookstores (the print edition of his first report) that said on the top of the back cover "The Foundation for Possible Articles of Impeachment," and a little further down had this quote "Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man." The foreword to the book, by Liz Holtzman, said "Impeaching President Bush for lying to get us into a war will not only protect us from him, but also send an unmistakable message to future presidents: never again." And yet, when we asked Conyers' staff about impeachment, they couldn't be bothered. They were too busy writing the second book (the new report), at taxpayer expense.
And it wasn't just the book. In 2005 Conyers introduced a bill to create a preliminary investigation into impeachment. Throughout the past three years, Conyers has spoken at rallies and events, leading crowds to believe he favored impeachment just as clearly as Bush led crowds to believe Saddam Hussein destroyed the World Trade Center. As the 110th Congress began in January 2007, Conyers addressed a huge crowd on the national mall and shouted "We can fire him!" about Bush, leading to a chant of "Impeach Bush!" Then Conyers told a reporter that what he'd meant was that if we waited until 2009, Bush would complete his term. This was not an isolated incident, but an example of what came to be a pattern in public events in Detroit and elsewhere at which Conyers suggested he was for impeachment and then assured reporters he was not. Perhaps that behavior doesn't justify shouts of "Traitor!" but it does explain them.
Conyers continues:
... I want to make clear how much I respect those who have given so much time and energy to the cause of fighting for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. While we may not agree on the best path forward, I know they are acting on the basis of our shared love of this country. These citizens are not fringe radicals, and they are obviously not motivated simply by personal feelings about President Bush, however strong those feelings may be at times. They are individuals who care deeply about our Constitution and our Nation, and who have stood up to fight for the democracy they love, often at great personal cost. Our country was founded, and our democracy has long been nurtured, by people willing to take such risks, and we should honor their vigilance and courage. However, as I have said, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney have earned the dishonorable eligibility to be impeached, I do not believe that would have been the appropriate step at this time in our history, and I would like again to briefly explain why that is the case.
Conyers has explained this before, many times. He's told us that Fox News would attack him if he moved on impeachment, especially if he failed. He's told us he was guaranteed to fail. He's told us it would be bad for the presidential election. But he hasn't put it into a book before, so this is worth considering:
Contrary to assertions by some advocates, the predecessor to this Report – the Judiciary Committee then-Minority staff's "Constitution in Crisis" – did not call for impeachment. Rather, it concluded that there was substantial evidence of impeachable misconduct and that there should be a full investigation by a select Committee armed with subpoena power.
That's true of the report, but not -- as I've mentioned -- of the book's cover and foreword. While Nancy Pelosi swore she would never impeach in May 2006 in response to a statement from the Republican National Committee, Conyers continued to hedge and fudge and prevaricate enough that a great many people worked hard to elect Democrats they disliked to Congress, in hopes that Conyers would become chair of the Judiciary Committee and impeach. Polls showed Americans believing that a Democratic majority would impeach. The RNC trumpeted this myth. And voters put in 30 new Democrats and not a single new Republican.
Conyers goes on:
Prior to the 2006 elections, when I saw that my views on impeachment were being misstated by friends and foes alike, I set the record straight in an essay published in The Washington Post titled "No Rush to Impeachment:" The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner. It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those "revolutionaries," it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate. So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader. The committee's job would be to obtain answers – finally. At the end of the process, if – and only if – the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.
Conyers was very clear. As I mentioned above, he did NOT communicate his "belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nation's history." He pretended not to know it. And yet, he had produced a report that laid out indisputable evidence of quintessentially impeachable offenses, and his staff was saying they wanted to get there one step at a time. We thought the "preliminary investigation" nonsense was a step on the way to impeachment, a step taken by a ranking member lacking the power of a chairmanship.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Impeach, Indict, Incarcerate
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 44 comments |
|
Democrat Complicity To Bush "Administration" Crimes
The real truth of why the Democrats won't push for impeachment is because it threatens to reveal the full extent of their own complicity in the government's abrogation of the Constitution, those set of laws which Bush called 'just a goddamned piece of paper'. This is not just a conspiracy theory. The evidence of this complicity is there for all to see, but only those who choose not to look with their eyes wide shut will see it. The mainstream U.S. media, the Congress, and the so-called Bush 'administration' have all failed the innocent citizens of America and Iraq, in whose blood their hands are soaked with. I believe Bush and Cheney won’t be impeached and they will suffer no repercussions after leaving office, because they will be viewed as Americans having done their best to lead their country in a time of so-called "war". Simply put, ultra-patriotism will save their asses. Please take a moment to read my article, Eyes Wide Shut: Arrogance, Ignorance & Ultra-Patriotism: by dotmafia (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 127 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:42:46 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well said
Keep it up. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:52:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: yep
i know same problem with prosecution by David Swanson (947 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:08:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well said
Nothing will change until the people in mass take to the street. That would take some hard work and a media that would cover it. The US is going to be a second rate nation like most of the other great nations have ended up. by tginmn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:04:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Congress impeach itself?
A thoughtful, well written and well sourced article, indeed. However, the most glaring aspect of the failure to impeach Bush and Cheney - likely the most powerful, damaging criminals in US history - is the simple fact that the US Congress is infected with persons that jumped on the fear and anger bandwagon in the march to Iraq. The cost of dissent was high. In a system designed so that cooler heads prevail, and that actions of large consequence are assessed after the lynch mob has gone home, the US Congress was maneuvered into an emotional fervor and joined Bush and Cheney as coconspirators. The US Congress was managed in the same way that the American people were managed. Any attempt at impeachment for the approval to torture, for illegal surveillance, circumventing democratic processes and the US Constitution or for ignoring subpoenas - while sidestepping the deliberate campaign of lies that led to the unwarranted US invasion of Iraq - would be tantamount to ignoring the mother of all elephants in the room. And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that Conyers - like any US politician that vales his/her position of power - assessed the impeachment question based on his own self-interest, rather than what is right for his country. Welcome to the real American democracy - a dangerous, enormously powerful machine when it falls victim to underhanded, self-serving masterminds that pursue hidden agendas. And we all know that between Bush and Cheney - Bush is not a master at anything. And these two immensely destructive criminals, and each of their henchmen, will walk - scott free. Beware of future US chief executives surrounded by those with ulterior motives, as the failure to impeach our current criminals will be seen as a welcome to repeat such crimes - or worse. How's your American pride holding up? by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:24:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No impeachment or criminal trials will be our fault
"And these two immensely destructive criminals, and each of their henchmen, will walk - scott free." They won't walk scott free unless We the People allow it to happen. The buck stops with us, not our corrupt, complicit government. The question is: how do we make that happen? We must keep talking it up, explaining to others, backing up those representatives leaning in our direction, getting rid of (firing) those who are not and letting media know that we're not going away. What this administration has done is shame the entire country. Obama can change that or continue in the same vein. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:50:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If it walks, looks and quacks like a duck...
... then it's likely a duck. I'm afraid that "We the People" are not in positions of genuine power - and "We" don't make anything happen. "We" don't "fire" anyone. Washington is a festering cesspool of self-interest and perception management, period. Every action taken or action not taken is based on this prime directive - and what is "good" or what is "right" has nothing to do with it. And the widely perceived savior Obama will cooperate with the grand agenda makers - with little difficulty. by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:27:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Sham, it's all one big con job.
Several of the comments stated rightly that there would be no impeachment because it would inevitably expose corruption of our entire system of government. Our whole government is guilty of a war crime and should be impeached. Conyers is doing his job of placating the angry masses with his false lying statements of impeachment and than back-tracking on them, as early American Indians would say, he speaks with a forked tongue. He's to put us off long enough so that the planned destruction of this country and the placement of a New World Order can be put in place to a point that we will no longer be capable of doing much about it. In a nutshell, he's saving his ass and not ours. There may have been a time when Conyers actually believed what he was saying, and he may still, but he has been so compromised as to have turned into a caricature of himself, a clown that dances to a tune other than the peoples he is suppose to represent. He no more represents the people than a dog represents the pole it pisses on. To Hell with Conyers. It's either a crime and you get held accountable or it's a crime and you're being let off. All this dancing around is bull. Citizens wouldn't be able to use the excuses put forth that so-called elected officials use, and they're the ones that are supposed to be held to a higher standard. What a laugh. If we committed half the crimes committed by members of these so-called government representatives we wouldn't see day-light for a thousand years. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:41:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Lip service doesn't cut it
Mr. Conyers knows better. He is basically saying that there is no point in impeachment because it would fail. To my knowledge, no rational people are calling for an immediate impeachment vote. People are calling for long overdue hearings, and a special prosecutor to be appointed if hearings deem it appropriate. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:54:52 AM (0+)
|
|
CHICKEN SH*T
It's really very simple why Conyers didn't move on impeachment. He is a gutless wonder. Imagine if Frank Church had had the same intestinal fortitude as Mr. Conyers. He would have never gotten past discovering that CIA means Central Intelligence Agency. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:25:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Conyers' cowardice typifies his whole party. In fact, it's
inseparable from that of his whole party, because Pelosi (overwhelmingly chosen by House Dems as Speaker) threatened Conyers with loss of his committee chairmanship, if he dared to step out of line on impeachment. Conyers' cowardice is also closely linked to everyone who votes for Democrats. His logic is the same as that of Dem voters -- he claims that since impeachment couldn't win a congressional vote, we shouldn't even bother to try it, even though it would theoretically be the right thing to do. In precisely parallel fashion, Dem voters refuse to vote for 3rd party candidates (or even for non-mainstream Dem candidates like Kucinich) because "they can't win," so let's not even bother voting for them, even though "theoretically" they might have better positions. Dem voters are in no position to look down on Conyers, who is no worse than 98% of House Dems. Most of these voters oppose torture, the wars, the bailouts, & would have supported impeachment hearings. Yet they vote for candidates holding none of these positions. These voters are more comfortable abandoning their principles & aligning with "mainstream" positions. That's all Conyers did. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:49:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Traitor
"Some ardent advocates of impeachment have labeled me a traitor – or worse – for declining to begin a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee. ... "--Ratface Yes he's a traitor! The so-called "government" is full of traitors--MOST in the Federal government are. It's a traitors club and they do their best to keep anyone clean out, because it's dangerous to have an honest man know your inside deals. The impeachment of Clinton was a farce, anyone who knows the deep history should realize that he too is a traitor worthy of impeachment, prosecution and hanging--to this day this is so. The great majority of this nation are so naive it is incredible--like somebody once said about somebody; "To stupid to live". by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:02:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Conyers is just another self serving member
of Congress and is a classic example of why we need term limits. I would also like to see run off elections which would promote more third party and independent parties to counter the 2 party mess we have. by tginmn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:08:32 AM (0+)
|
|
The role of Conyers, and Congress in general is to
protect the status quo. There is no industry in the world more profitable than American politics. Furthermore, having an immoral puppet who is without conscious in the oval office is the optimum scenario for superior returns for those in power. Conyers job, as a the point man for defending the Constitution is to walk that fine line of doing so, but at the same time maintainting the very profitable status quo. Hense, he writes and yaks to explain and console and justify and hopes that the people who fund the crimianl government in Washington DC will at least remain in their homes and be pacified with their...entertainment and...sports...all the while those in power count the wealth in their offshore bank accounts... by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:28:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Coward!
There can be no other reason why the Bush crime family has not been impeached. And it should have been the whole lot of them. The only reason that I have not been down their throats more often is that we must not forget Paul Wellstone and, more recently Mr. Connell, whose plane mysteriously exploded in the air. These people are not amateurs. They are killers. They have been resposible for millions of deaths and have no conscience about it. They are responsible for the three thousand deaths on 911; they are responsible for the deaths of over 4,000 US military deaths in Iraq and over one million Iraqi civilian deaths and many million displaced Iraqis. Who wouldn't be afraid of them? No matter what happens we must be sure that even after they are out of ofice, they are indicted and brought to justice. Fortunately there are plans to do just that. Whatever happens we have to send a message to future politicians that we will not abide this kind of behavior. Every day I send messages to my representatives that this must be done. It's time to make our representatives afraid of us. They work for us! If they don't do what we want them to do, we have to fire them. We have that power and it's time that we all wake up and use it. by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:32:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Excellent article David
And I echo the chorus of calling Conyers a traitorous coward. However, he's probably less of a coward and more of a traitor because most of congress is as corrupt as the bush regime and the incoming Obama regime. There are very few in congress that have the integrity of Dennis Kucinich. He is beholden to no one and therefore has the courage to stand up for the constitution and we the people. I cried when he read those articles of impeachment because someone FINALLY DID! I hate to sound so negative but we have to face reality. I don't think any email, fax, letter or phone call we make to congress or Obama will make a damn bit of difference. Like someone in the post before said, it will take ALL OF US taking to the streets to put this country into the hands of the people. We have the numbers, we have the power. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:44:33 AM (0+)
|
|
"Conyers Explains Why He Hasn't Impeached"
Typical of politics. Tell the public enough of what they want to hear to get them off your back and then ignor them. Democrats appear to be blowing off progressive support already. I haven't heard anything from Ron Paul recently, but my suspicion is that Kucinich and Wexler will be told to cool it by the DNC. With that in mind, maybe it's finally time for progressives to form a third party and for the electorial system to be altered to accommodate the consolidation of votes collected by that third party. In other words, if Democrats fell short of defeating a Republican, Progressives could consolidate their votes to form a join government with Democrats, assuming their collective count exceeded that of Republicans. The system is obviously broken, and though it's way too early to tell, change could very well go down the tube in the weeks to come in an attempt to reestablish a system that wasn't working to begin with. I've seen my 401K tank twice in the last eight years, both recessions caused by "corruption," not because of "natural swings" within the market. Is anyone going to jail? Hell no! Are 401Ks being reimbursed? Give every American $100,000. What percent would that be of the bailout package? Patience may be a verture, but it's wearing thin on my side of the fence. by Ned Delaney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:58:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Here is the reason why John Conyers
and each and everyone of the feckless cowards, our so called elected officials in Wor-shing-ton haven't began Impeachment. Listen very carefully to what is being said and look at his left eye, rather scary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g "when we are successful, and we will be?" The agenda is alrready under way, so get use to it. What's most sad is that the average American, "the sheople" do not have a clue as to what is occurring. So the plan is now being fast tracked and the sheople aren't gonna know what hit them. Conyers does though. Dam right he does! And he'll keep his mouth shut too. He knows better than to ruffle the feathers of this NWO. But I digress by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:16:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I see what you mean
Scary, evil left eye. I had to turn away because I don't believe it is human....... by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:59:50 PM (0+)
|
|
What it really takes to impeach
Conyer's rationalizations aside the more likely conclusion that can be drawn is that all the illegal powers that Bush managed to rustle on the constitutional landscape are just too mouthwatering for the Democratic syndicate to let go of. The precedent that they want established is that all these crimes could be committed by a Democrat and they also could get away with it. What's note-worthy on the feasability of success of an impeachment attempt is that in 1998 most of the public were spectators to a process with very thin crimes and evidence. The full power of the media was rallied to the cause of the reactionary political establishment and even then the public remained luke-warm and never gave it their backing. In the Bush administration the crimes were clear for everyone to see, the evidence was compelling but the media and the opposition party were almost universally silent. The will of the people, unsupported by these power structures has pushed for action to no avail. Not that anyone here needs reminding of this situation, but it serves as a self-evident case study of how far we are from true democracy in this country. I agree with Richard's comment above. Democratic voters need to view themselves from a distance. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:25:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Is Rep. John Conyers corrupt? What do you all think?
Thanks for this effort David. Your usual scholarly work. Timely. Excellent! Conyers own statements condemn him. Conyers: "Many think these acts rise to the level of impeachable conduct. I agree." and "I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man" from his earlier books cover. I agree with you David that "the fact was that he refused to try, and as many of us read the Constitution, that was a failure of duty". So if Conyers is upset that some lone person somewhere in the comos called him a"traitor", he brought it on himself. I hope the voters in his district are happy with him. No one else in America is! I published the following on the 12th here on OpEdNews January 12, 2009 Is Rep. John Conyers corrupt? By John H Kennedy Is Rep. Conyers corrupt? Rep. John Conyers (MI) has portrayed himself as a leading supporter of impeachment but in his job as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee he has blocked impeachment for years. Conyers promised to hold impeachment hearings after the election but broke his word. Conyers ignored a petition with over one million signatures asking for impeachment hearings. Conyers also ignored a number of other impeachment petitions that added up to a second million or so signatures. Now we find that Conyers was using a Republican operative involved in alleged vote rigging scams to maintain and control his congressional website. The following articles have more: "GOP election stealers run Rep. John Conyers' Congressional Website."- http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38816 and "GOP Technology Powerhouse eMerges Behind Firewalls on the Hill" http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/top_tier_GOP_techs_GovTech_and_GSL_Solutions_merge There are a multitude of progressive and Democratic website specialists available who could have maintained Conyers' website. Why did he go to this GOP operative? Did Conyers have a "behind the scenes" relationship with the Republican operative? Does this explain Conyers' refusal to hold impeachment hearings? Will we ever know? The only way Conyers can prove to the voters in his district that he wasn't playing games with impeachment is to start impeachment hearings prior to January 20th. Vice President Cheney has admitted authorizing torture. President Bush, in an interview with Brit Hume that aired on Fox News Sunday, admitted that he personally authorized torture. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/11/bush-authorized-torture/ Torture is prohibited by the US Constitution, Federal Law and by treaty in the Geneva Convention. Defending the Separation of Powers and the House's Constitutional prerogative as the sole maker of Federal Laws and the Constitution's mandate to have them obeyed and enforced by the executive branch, is the responsibility of the US House, not Obama. What is Conyers waiting for? If Conyers fails to allow impeachment to proceed before January 20th he will be remembered as the man who refused to use the power of his office to defend our Constitution, Rule of Law and Separation of Powers. Conyers may claim that Speaker Pelosi took "impeachment off the table"- but that excuse no longer has any credibility. Pelosi made her own decision to violate her oath of office. Rep. Conyers' decision to violate his own oath is a separate matter and is solely between Conyers and the Constitution. Conyers' excuse that "she made me do it"- is rejected by all. If the Illinois House can vote to impeach after only 90 minutes of debate, the Democrats in the 111th Congress can get impeachment hearings started before January 20th . Conyers can stop the coming Bush pardons of those that advocated torture in our name, by starting impeachment hearings. If Rep. Conyers is the patriot he claims to be, he will do so. by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:50:00 PM (0+)
|
|
As other posters have noted,
change begins with us. We must find ways to work effectively, to hold the Democrats to the Constitution, to do their lawful duty. Conyers has not the guts to impeach. He knuckled under to Pelosi and others, and left the people of this country hanging, and the Bush crew walking. Trials in absentia? People's courts? We must brainstorm solutions to the problem. the Democrats now think they have the whip in hand and will run the show as they like. We need to tell them, make them understand and recognize, that the people are sovereign, not the damn politicians we elected. I sent an e mail to Conyers months ago telling him I no longer supported him as he had a small problem with reality and the need for following the will of the people. Never heard back, not surprising. We must find a way to break through the collective wall all these politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, are hiding behind. How many times have polls and other sources of information indicated strong public positions on an issue (bailout for example) that the pols ignored and went through with? We have to find an effective, legal and peaceful way to get through to these people. In effect, I agree with a position taken above, that they spit on the Constitution, that the supremacy of the Constitution is dead, but they continue to wrap themselves in the image of the Constittution because the people still believe in it. We need real change, and it starts with us. Obama will not truly be President until he opens trials, investigations, commissions etc and prosecutes the Bush administration criminals. by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:12:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you David
My major concern about not investigating possible criminal wrong doing in the Bush administration is we are giving a free pass to those who violated their oath of office. Conyers allowed this not because he couldn't investigate and impeach individuals for illegal behavior, but simply because he feared he wouldn't ultimately be successful. Justice is about trials that determine criminal wrong doing. No trial, no investigation, no effort to determine criminal wrong doing implies there was no serious violation of the law. Pelosi even said in 2008, "I know of no laws broken by this administration. Why was this done? Conyers ASSUMES Republicans would not support impeachment. He ASSUMES that no amount of sufficiently strong evidence would be adequate to sway Republicans to support impeachment. He ASSUMES the public really does not care what the President does in their name, or what laws he breaks. He ASSUMES the majority of the public will support any Representative or Senator of any party who supports the President and not care if the President broke laws while in office. He ASSUMES the public will offer its tacit approval to all future Presidents to simply ignore the law when it suits the President to do so. That is alot to assume. Conyers actions make the US a nation of convenience. By his actions, we are no longer a nation that upholds laws. Thanks to him, we are now a nation that ignores laws when it is "too troublesome" to investigate and impeach the highest office holders in the country for illegal behavior. Conyers had made it clear he is not in Congress to encourage our leaders to pay attention to laws, constraints and limitations on power to prevent excesses and abuses by the Executive Branch of government. Rather, Conyers actions should emboldened future Presidents to assume our laws can be blatantly ignored. A President can pretty much do whatever he wants so long as the opposite party does not wholly control Congress. If Conyers really worries about impeachment precedent, what precedent has he set by his lack of action? Doesn't his lack of investigation allow an unchecked abuse of power to become established precedent and thus give credence to any future President they can do the same because their predecessor did? I only hope the good people in Conyers district will impeach him for his failure to carry out his job responsibilities. He has hurt the US and our system of government as much as Bush himself, by enabling Bush and future leaders instead of checking their power. by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:21:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You are right about Conyers assumptions
Conyers effectively assumes that the United States is not a nation of laws. Conyers assumes that those sworn to defend the constitution from domestic enemies will not uphold their solemn oath. The Constitution says that Presidents SHALL BE impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors not may be. Conyers says he agrees that impeachable offences have occurred and yet he has not commenced impeachment hearings. The word traitor seems appropriate. The sentiment go directly to hell fitting if unsatisfying. If Bush, Cheney, Conyers or Pelosi are summarily executed by vigilantes would Barak Obama still say we must look forward not backward in the face of those crimes too? America exists in a world with 19 times as many non-Americans. The non-American population likely has about 19 scoundrels for every American. And there is no unity amongst Americans for the selective application of the rule of law against some of them and not others as arbitrarily determined by whatever scoundrel is in power. It is through adherence to a moral code and the rule of law only that America can lead. It is by good example only that America can lead. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:40:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Decimate the GOP
What can we hard working, tax-paying citizens do about this breakdown of justice? We can retrieve the courage discarded on the floor of Congress and go after the party from which the two traitorous criminals arose. The party of special interests for wealth and commerce benefited from and spurred on their crimes. This party used its massive ‘echo chamber’ propaganda machine to deceive the public about the debauchery of the two. And, this party is hopelessly infected with corruption and rotting to its core. We can decimate the Republican Party by evermore voting against all of its candidates from president to dogcatcher. We can topple the GOP from the status of a national party and at the same time give warning to the spineless Democrats that it is time to pin on the badge of courage and enforce our laws, protect our Constitutional liberties and support what is in the best interests of most Americans. America first! by Dan Merica (23 articles, 73 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:23:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If...
...the votes are counted accurately. by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:44:44 PM (0+)
|
|
"We the People"
by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:24:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: hey thanks for the tune munich ......
street fightin' man.. one of my favorites by the stones. Maybe that can be the "darkness gallery's" anthem? ;) by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:52:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Impeach Conyers
Mr. Conyers, this country is on the brink of absolute collapse, morally, financially, and politically and as a Democratic Republic. The overwhelming demands of the people for the impeachment of those that have brought about these calamities, have been ignored by you. by Michael Weber (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 55 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:38:11 PM (0+)
|
|
self - incrimination
Nancy Pelosi's husband is a war profiteer. Which democrats even tried to "just say no" to the war effort? To indict the Bush administration is to self-incriminate. What ever happened to the person in Vermont who was supposed to file murder charges against Bush & co?I haven't even heard if she was elected or not. by Sherry Gadberry Turner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:53:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Let's wait for The Hague
Bush has not been impeached because the impeacher, Congress, is complcit in many of the impeachable offenses. The US federal government of the past 8 years is profoundly corrupted. More corrupted than any other time after the 19th century. The only other recourse of accountability is The Hague. If The Hague files indictment charges against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, that will by extension indict the entire federal government of the Bush era. by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:58:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Apart from the fact that this suggestion passes the buck
again, it won't work without the support of Barak Obama as the President. There are no avenues to lawful accountability that can succeed without the cooperation of the US President because of the political immunity woven into the structure of international laws. The American Servicemembers Protection Act - US law, effectively means foreign prosecutors don't have the tools to prosecute Americans unless Americans cooperate. The US permanent security member veto means no security council resolution referring charges to the ICJ in the United Nations structure can occur without US Presidential acquiesence. Barak Obama would have to cooperate to prosecute Bush internationally. When all the legal recourses are off the table it is the US Declaration of Independence that suggests the right thing to do. when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. There are times when revolution and extra-lawful actions are the only righteous options left. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:06:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Perspective
Clinton is impeached for lying under oath, about adultry and consensual sex - a personal matter. No one died. Yet Bush and henchmen orchstrate a campaign of lies to mislead the American people and Congress into an attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq, resulting in over 4,000 US dead and likely one million Iraqi civilians dead - through institutionally authorized, industrialized murder. Now there's a bit of perspective. Here's some more: Bush and cohorts ignore a bevy of urgent, unprecedented warnings of an impending and major terror attack on the US - some very specific. Many of these warnings reach Bush while he is on a month long vacation just before the attacks. And after the attacks of 911, Bush is hailed as a hero. What a great system, American democracy. How's your American pride holding up, these days? by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:13:53 PM (0+)
|
|
A Big One of Many.
David, Thank you for penning and sharing your perspective and critique of Conyers. Conyers is but one of many in the Congress who have failed their constituents and their nation. Yes, there is no question that "butt protection" was a significant factor leading to an astonishing display of lack of courage by most members of Congress. However, we are all complicit. We reelected and elected Party members who are for the most part more interested in "Party related" reputations than in directly dealing with issues. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "one-party" system must go before we can have meaningful democracy in the US. The offal is too dense to get through. by Herbert Hoffman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:12:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: We actively opposed anti-impeachment Democrats in 2008
re: "We re-elected and elected Party members who are for the most part more interested in "Party related" reputations than in directly dealing with issues." Partially true in Colorado. Some of us however, actively campaigned against Colorado congressmen who refused to discuss or consider impeachment. Unfortunately, due to the Obama landslide, we were not successful, but one of the Democratic congressman we opposed, won with a much smaller edge than previously, so perhaps we did do some good, In 2010 maybe we will do better at opposing them. . by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:48:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Politics...
Politics in this country has slightly less credibility than Professional Wrestling. Both parties take turns playing a game of "Good cop/Bad cop" with us while pursuing their corporate agenda, oblivious to our wants and needs. Calls against the bailout were about 100/1 and it passed. NAFTA probably ranked worse. They're laughing at us. by Matthew Peters (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 171 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:26:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Conyers has no excuse for his failure to act in time
Conyers has not yet provided a good excuse for not indicting and prosecuting Bush for war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy murder charges, click here http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=2736585516 except he probably quivers at the thought, forsaking his sworn duties when the nation needed him most, click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:18:54 PM (0+)
|
|
This claim seems to be factually wrong
Where is the poll that show a majority of Americans supporting impeachment? The best most recent polling question I am aware of was one that Opednews Rob Kall and yourself formulated for Zogby about this time last year (before the Senate Committees - Intelligence and Armed Services findings) and that didn't get 40 percent support for impeachment. Earlier polls contained provisions like "IF the President lied should he be impeached" and so they don't measure the same question as "should the President be impeached". by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:21:12 PM (0+)
|
|
why conyers hasn't impeached
Conyers is bought and paid for just like all but 2 members of the 535--Kucinich and Ron Paul. by paul roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:20:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Blackmail?
Perhaps this item from Wayne Madsen Report explains: August 29, 2007 -- Another case of a Justice Department politically-motivated selective prosecution House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, who has taken impeachment off the table, has close links to indicted Louisiana Representative William Jefferson, according to WMR's congressional sources. On June 28, 2007, WMR reported, "WMR has learned that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) received an unusual visit from the FBI yesterday morning. Although we have not determined the purpose of the 10 am meeting, it came on the same day that White House counsel Fred Fielding formally rejected subpoenas from Conyers and his Senate counterpart Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for documents concerning National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance of domestic communications." We have learned that Conyers' close association with Jefferson was the primary topic of discussion of his meeting with the FBI. There is a strong possibility that Conyers was pressured to back off of impeachment or there would be a closer look by the Justice Department at his past dealings with Jefferson. During a recent appearance in New Jersey, Conyers was so adamant against impeachment, he tripped himself up when answering a call for impeaching Bush and Cheney. He told the anti-war crowd to get him a New Jersey Democrat to support an impeachment bill. Conyers was then told that New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne had signed on to Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney. Conyers was unaware of that fact. Conyers has clearly been compromised as House Judiciary chairman by his association with Jefferson. It is time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to find another Judiciary Committee chairman before the committee loses any more relevance and clout. by Clark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:30:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Blackmail with a broad brush...
"Conyers has clearly been compromised as House Judiciary chairman by his association with Jefferson. It is time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to find another Judiciary Committee chairman before the committee loses any more relevance and clout."--summation comment Now do you seriously think the FBI doesn't have some goods on Pelosi to shake her shimmy? All of these people have skeletons ready to leap out of the closet at the tinkle of the Intelligence bell. by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:50:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Quite a consensus
This is a powerful collection of comments and insights. My question is (not be retro or notalgiac), where the hell is Dennis Kucinich? by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:14:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Neither the Democratic Congress nor Obama nor his
administration are guilty of war crimes. Wanting it to be so does not make it so. You can accuse them of being cowardly, but that is about it. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:25:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Check this article out - About Kucinich
by John H Kennedy (12 articles, 7 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 281 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:11:35 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
