John Conyers is conducting impeachment inquiries right now on CSPAN1. The Republicans are calling it a political stunt.
Please consider FAXing Congressman Conyers to thank him for holding hearings at 202-225-0072.
Even if you are sorely tempted to say something like “Too Little Too Late”, please resist. We need to encourage this to proceed, not take out our frustrations that something should have been done a long time ago.
This is very good for progressives, and will certainly hurt the Republicans in the upcoming election. The timing is actually perfect, especially if these hearings drag out through August, and build momentum.
Help build that momentum and thank John Conyers for doing the right thing.
The hearings will be rebroadcast tonight on CSPAN1 at 8pm EDT.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published over 45 scientific articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
Too little, too late. And it is nothing more than a stunt.
It's an insult to the public's intelligence. The whole idea is to throw a miserable crumb to those who are aware that we're governed by dangerous criminals. But at the same time, the utmost care is being taken to insure that the process won't go anywhere. The idea is pure public relations & "image management" -- to suggest to the public that Republicans are "bad;" to falsely portray the Democrats as "doing something about it;" yet to do this in a way that won't "rock the boat."
I don't at all agree that Conyers or the Democrats should be "thanked" for this charade. That's just giving them positive strokes for lying to us & cheating us once again.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM
The time is truly now before the next administration takes office. The duties of the executive branch need to be absolutely clear, with a reasonable balance between congress, and the judiciary ... at the will of the people ... right now the executive is way out in some field ... their actions .... when known .... not acceptable to most Americans.
Standing up for the recourse given to us, by our own constitution, is absolutely necessary at this point in history, to clarify the air ... to let the little 'guy' know that it is not just him that goes to jail when 'he' breaks the laws.
We also need to let the world know that we are a nation of laws, governed by it's people, and that we respect those laws, as well as international laws.
by
Victoria (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 8:56:23 PM
In Conyers position, given the givens, what would YOU do
Richard?
I watched the whole six hours. Credible witnessess and specific charges on important matters have been provided before and some of it was reiterated again - but the Republicans Committee members didn't seem to be willing to deal with the substance of the charges. Without the threat of real confrontation, without being made to have to defend specific untenable positions, they aren't taking any position on the Constutitional issues.
For the most part all of those who asked questions of the panel directed their questions to panel members who they knew would agree with them. It was like they wanted to get their questions heard as being asked rather than get any real analysis done. It was a couple of the lesser lights (it seemed to me- folks I'd not heard about) on the judiciary committee that seemed to try and get some attention on the specific charges and some engagement from panelists with opposing views.
Also, (back to my first point) Conyers has always had to factor in Pelosi's statements as Speaker. She said impeachment was off the table BEFORE the 2006 election. As soon as Conyers (as Chair - and with a considerable amount of pressure/help from activists and Kucinich and others) starts to get some movement characters like Steny Hoynes (?) pop up in the media saying - we'll we may have hearings but not impeachment hearings - immediately watering down anything that looks like a useful confrontation and challenge to take principled positions.
Conyers position (as Chairman who has to set up a process that is fair) is genuinely difficult is my point. So my question to YOU is what would YOU do in his position given the givens?
If you can't engage enough intellectually with his position and his difficulty as chairman so as to offer some advice (if you can't - I'm not saying that you can't) then it doesn't seem like you are being fair - you aren't identifying anything he could do, even in principle, to get your approval as a citizen.
The Democratic party leaderships stated positions (Obama and Pelosi etc) is that they want to avoid divisiveness. But sometimes - when the issue is whether or not the Constitution is going to be upheld or not some divisiveness with those who are allowing it to not be upheld is necessary.
Sometimes divisiveness is necessary in order to do good and to confront those who are eqivocating with a choice that they can't dodge. And mostly, right now, what the Democrats (the leaders) are allowing the Republicans (mostly) to do is dodge and evade.
If the Democrats don't confront the Republicans over impeachment and make them take a principled stand - choosing loyalty to principle (oaths and the Constitution verses loyalty to the President a party colleague) then the world will not cease to be a divisive one in which everyone thinks future Presidents may be permitted to torture and aggressively invade, the world will still mostly be against that outcome, but the divisiveness will find expression not in the political sphere where no blood is shed but in war and or revolution.
By not being divisive the Democrats are EFFECTIVELY uniting with the Republicans to make an exception for Americans against their treaties with the rest of the human world that wants a rule of law.
I'm ranting maybe. But I ask you, I invite you to show understanding for Conyers predicament, what would you NOW do in Conyers position? What could he do, realistically, that would earn your approval?
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 12:18:05 AM
I agree with you, Brett. It is easy to judge from a distance. Easy to forget that JC stands on the threshold of a den of rapacious wolves and deadly snakes - A band of the most viscious, ruthless, cunning and amoral criminals and thugs - possibly in the history of the world. Their wear their disguises so well that even those who know them would deny the reality.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 10:10:06 AM
I respect Richard he typically makes a lot of sense
however I'm not sure how a man of his convictions can still be alive unless he doesn't actually take commensurate action on them - I think he should have died already fighting against Franco and the fascists in the Spanish Civil war - maybe he was too young then ;-)
I wonder if Richard has a Cassandra complex - in that he tells the truth (as he sees it and I usually agree with him) and is frustrated at not being heard. Saddly, and this is where I think I part political ways with Richard, I don't think "the left", "the proletariat" or any large group of easily diverted and distracted human beings every really does hear/listen, they have to be shown. They have to be presented with clear alternatives - and that is where the right wing does politics better (more effectively). The right says like George W Bush - your either with us or against us. Or, the only good indian is a dead indian. The right burns the fences under those that sit on them. The "right" force choices by limiting them.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 1:12:23 AM
Vincent Bugliosi beautifully challenges Presser's contention that a lie about sex is worse than a lie about war. Now Bugliosi is citing the WHITE HOUSE MEMO.
Bruce Fein: Executive ONLY has powers we the people give him. Do all presidents spy during wars? No, and this is worse because this war is permanent. Robert Jackson at Nuremburg says that an abusive power unrebuked will lie around like a loaded weapon.
Stephen Presser: right to hold this hearing, but there is no evidence of fraudulent motives, and minority report of this committee shows that the admin has cooperated and acted in good faith.
Rocky Anderson: impeachment appropriate now, including for fraud in taking us into war by the pres... oops I mean hight ranking official of the administration.
Bob Barr: Our bill of rights is vanishing. He holds up and displys the Bill of Rights with most of it blacked out. He submits it into the record. Not my job to choose impeachment, but if choice is constitutional inquiry or silence, I choose inquiry. [One rightwinger won over already today!]
Liz H: Admin will never prosecute itself. Truth Commission won't work. Only impeachment is practical and possible. It eliminates executive privilege.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM
1:32 Nadler questions Schwartz assertion that impeachment is not practical. But prosecution faces possible block by pardons. Do we need to change pardon clause of the Constitution? [IS HE SERIOUS? Amend the Constitution to explicity bar the outrageous absurdity of self-pardoning??] Fein jumps in to say that a statute could require that pardons occur 8 months before leaving office, therby creating political penalty for abuse of the power.
1:30 Nadler suggests that even though executive privilege should not apply in an impeachment hearing, Bush might STILL assert it. Fein replies that remedy wold be an article of impeachment, as with Nixon.
1:28 Nadler tears down rightwing strawman that impeachment is about using presidency for personal gain, it's about abuse of power! If the Pres lied to Congres, and I think there's good evidence he did [Nadler just violated the HOLY RULE against calling the king a liar], it's impeachable. This prez claims right to call anyone in this room an enemy combatant and lock them up forever. This has never happened since Magna Carta in English-speaking countries. They torture. they don't prosecute their own crimes. There's no remedy by the executive branch! We've got to figure a way around this. [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?]
1:18 Lamar Smith citing fact that most people have discussed impeachment in this non-impeachment hearing. Presser claims Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with lying about sex, and that he has heard nothing today to suggest impeachable offenses. [YES! More "I am not a crook" discussion from the Republicans.] Radkin joining in: "He did not lie us into a war." Plus: "Lots of other presidents have lied us into wars too!" [Derrida called this kettle logic: I didn't break your kettle, it was broken when I borrowed it, they always break, and I never borrowed it at all.]
1:18 Q and A beginning.
Elliott Adams: he joked and passed on commenting.
Schwartz: Abuses of this president are unique. He claims the right to break any law and to do so secretly. This doctrine needs to be "squashed, disagreed with, and exposed." [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHED?]
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM
Reason to Not impeach: "Dangerous Muslim Terrorists!"
More from David Swanson's live blogging, at a.d.s.:
2:02 Franks has interrupted this hearing on the abuses of Bush and Cheney to let us know that we should all be VERY VERY AFRAID of Muslim terrorists.
1:49 Bobby Scott: Are we necessarily talking about impeachment or something other than impeachment or must it be impeachment, what other tool do we have to enforce limitations on executive power? Fein says that under Nixon when he was in Justice Dept they concluded you could not prosecute a president while in office, and concluded that impeachment was the only remedy for an abusive president. Barr added that Congress can pass laws. Holtzman said that doesn't matter if president is not bound to obey the laws, and that the real remedy is impeachment -- there's no running away from that. Bugliosi added that president can be prosecuted from the day he leaves office.
1:46 Congressman Kucinich has never left the room and is still sitting in the front row. People are still coming in -- all of them impeachment activists -- whenever a seat opens up.
1:42 King is still talking about shopping for uranium. Essentially his case amounts to "Yoo Hoo, Look way over here away from the Constitution. I'm making a giant ass of myself! Look Look!" See evidence re uranium lies HERE.
1:37 Nadler suggests impeachment is virtually impossible because conviction requires support of president's party. Holtzman says that impeachment can be bipartisan, as in fact it was with Nixon. But the Democrats led in the beginning and did not do a headcount before proceeding. The process was made completely fair. Southern Democats and Republicans joined in because it was fair to parties and fair to the president. And when we started nobody thought it would work. It did.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 1:13:55 PM
Vets had to remove their buttons or were themselves removed
Respect shown to those who actually fought in the war? Nope.. (My comment, not David's )
2:36 At request of a Republican Conyers asks staff to remove signs. Staff is asking vets to remove buttons.
Tarak Kauff shouts that it's a disgrace when Bush is responsible for so many murders to demand that vets take off buttons. He's hauled out by police.
TJ Buomo refuses to take off his button, shouts out his 1st Amendment right and is hauled out by police.
Lori Arbeiter also refused to comply and was hauled out.
Liz Cater spoke up and tried to go help Lori and was threatened with removal until a bunch of us shouted that she'd done nothing, and the police backed off and she sat down.
2:26 Lofgren is still pushing idea of a truth and reconciliation commission. And Schwartz is recommending the 9-11 Commission as a model [I may be tired but I'm not hallucinating this.]
2:25 OK I've covered up my IMPEACH shirt because a friend thinks they'll try to arrest me for wearing it.
2:16 Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert: The president is not a crook, really! And: Never trust a Muslim!
2:10 The Judiciary Committee staff is begging me to cover up my IMPEACH shirt, and I'm refusing.
2:08 Rep Mel Watt here now for first time today. He said "If attorneys general are protecting me against terrorists, who is protecting me against THEM?" [Loud applause.] He then refuses to support impeachment. [silence] Did Pelosi send Watt here??
2:02 Franks has interrupted this hearing on the abuses of Bush and Cheney to let us know that we should all be VERY VERY AFRAID of Muslim terrorists. Then Franks says that if there was a failure, it was in allowing 9-11 to occur. [Wow, it's almost as if he's read Kucinich's article of impeachment on that very point. Yes, I'm kidding. He wouldn't ever have done that.]
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 1:57:51 PM
Only a Threat To Un-Elect House Dems Will cause Impeachment
ALL SHOULD BE AWARE that the House Democrats did not allow this preliminary Impeachment Hearing Today Out Of The Goodness Of Their Hearts or Because of Any Particular Group's Lobbying.
There is only one dynamic that has changed recently.
The Democrats are afraid of massive voter retribution in the November Election. They are afraid of losing their jobs and their power, and the perks that go with it.
The Voters have recently and loudly told the House Democrats that we are sick and tired of their stonewalling on holding Bush and Cheney accountable.
After My Democrats took over, the polls show that Congress's positive rating dropped to the single digits, the lowest in history. The refusal of the House Democrats to stop the Iraq War and Impeach is unforgiveable. We put you in office and if you do not hold Full Impeachment Hearings prior to the Election we will un-elect you.
In Colorado We Democrats, Independents, Republicans and others are currently doing negative campaigning against all incumbent House/Senate Candidates who have refused to support and even discuss impeachment.
If the House Democrats do not immediately announce the date of the first full impeachment hearing scheduled prior to the election, we will greatly increase our negative campaigning.
Your job is yours to lose. You have our support only if you hold serious full impeachment hearings before the election.
John H Kennedy Denver CO 43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to Denver County Conv, Colorado Coordinator-National Impeachment Network, and organizer of the IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION
Hearing live blog ctd read at afterdowningstreet.org
Lundgren is asleep now.
3:25 pm Rep Brad Sherman shows up for first time and says Congress has become mere advisors to White House. President won't obey laws. Any law to fix the problem will be vetoed. To Fein: is nonfeasance an impeachable offense? Fein: the "take care that laws are faithfully executed" comes from English Bill of Rights ... meaning Yes. Sherman is talking about signing statements. Sherman asks Holtzman if a prosecutor should bring a case if virtually certain of not getting a conviction? She says maybe.
Kucinich has gone out and come back with what is probably a stack of petition signatures in support of impeachment. Ellison is talking with Kucinich.
3:19 p.m. Rep Hank Johnson asks Presser about his testimony back in the day that if Clinton lied he should be impeached: if a president lied about taking a nation into war, would that be an impeachable offense? Presser says "you'd have to look into the circumstances...." Johnson turns to Holtzman, which is much more productive.
Nadler and Scott are both sleeping. No joke.
3:13 Rep Cohen asks Holtzman about what branch Cheney belongs to. Fein points out that a Senator has been impeached, so Cheney can claim he's in the legislative branch and be impeached. Cohen asks Fein whether it would be socially beneficial to impeach, or more important to do other things as Rep Watt advises. Fein says that impeaching Nixon was greatly unifying. He also says that there is penty of time since no investigation is needed. The president has confessed to viiolating FISA (witnesses are now routinely accusing the president of crimes and calling him "the president" against the rules).
3:03 Rep. Wexler says that ignoring subpoenas, spying, and torture, are - pace Pence - not "mere policy differences". Wexler expands on the subpoenas topic. Barr has left. Wexler wanted to ask him about statements he made in support of the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. (Wexler may have been out of the room today when Barr came around in support of impeachment.) Rocky Anderson says Wexler is right, that we're not just talking about policy, but about Constitutional issues. Now, says Rocky, is the time for Congress to assert its power. Wexler now asks Fein about Mukasey coming before the committee and refusing to honor subpoenas. Fein says that's a clear impeachable offense on its own. Popular government can't work if the public can't know what its government is doing. You don't need an investigation to impeach: you just vote. [Go, Bruce!] Liz Holtzman adds that the president [OOPS, WHO? Can you say that?] has refused to give Congress what it needs to do its job and obstructs the work of Congress. She recommends holding an impeachment inquiry, requesting the information again, and if it is not provided then impeaching.
NOTE: Pacifica is terminating its broadcast, but we all appreciate them carrying the hearing up to this point.
3:02 Rep. Pence appears to be filibustering on his opposition to impeachment, chewing up time for no apparent purpose, asking three-minute questions that get three-word responses because they are just obvious rants.
2:53 p.m. One of the Repubicans tried to cut Bugliosi off by claiming he was discussing classified information. (He was discussing the declassified 2002 NIE.) The groans from the audience shut him up. Nobody said a thing about the groaning. Bugliosi was permitted to keep speaking.
2:43 Sheila Jackson-Lee(I kid you not) is urging passage of a bill to correct the abuse of signing statements (who spots the weakness in this strategy?). But she's now asking Fein to speak on war lies, and she's suggesting it's treason. And now she's giving Bugliosi a chance to expand on his case (the familiar case in his book, which many in this room have never heard).
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:26:10 PM
The Republican retort just shows you how truly out of touch they are with reality. They have selective memories as they don't want to acknowledge their very supportive part in allowing all the illegalities Bush is involved in to happen. They are really equally responsible for the mess the U.S. is in right now and he*l if they are going to try and correct it.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 967 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:27:23 PM
Thanks DW, but really our heartfelt gratitude goes to David Swanson, who has put so much time and energy, - his life really, - into this for such a long time now. He brought Conyers' original case for impeachment out here to the newsweb (2005?), and has kept in our awareness ever since then.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:50:46 PM
Contact c-span at events@c-span.org and ask them to replay the hearings one more time this weekend, as well.
Contact members who failed to appear for the hearings at all. Especially Boucher, Sutton, Delahunt and Berman. Disgraceful and a rebuke to Conyers and the Constitution!
by
More Voices (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:34:54 PM
So we should just overlook the crimes of the Bush regime? Even if it goes nowwhere, it is at least on the RECORD! FUTURE generations will know that we were not all stupid or blind or both. No more sitting like bumps on a log letting everyone off the hook while we suffer the consequences.
by
Vanessa Van (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:41:27 PM
I will thank John Conyers. And will check in on Bob Barr's page. He should have got some good TV ad material for this. Schwartz maybe carries a bigger wallop than we know even though he wants Church committee first. Holtzman and Dean have carried on for so many years. Maybe they will make a bigger play. But at least things were more open.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1358 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 814 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 3:57:34 PM
Nice work. I do get CSpan and watched a bunch of the hearing, but this helped fill in a few spots I missed. I'm sure many others thank you as well.
Stephen Presser was maddening. Republicans and other opponents of impeachment keep saying that Bush was within his rights to lie to congress and the American people because he believed Iraq to be a threat. However, Vincent Bugliosi proved that Bush knew Iraq was NOT a threat, yet he continued to pursue war with Iraq for his own reasons. Also, Presser said there was no evidence of obstruction of justice -- what about refusal to comply with subpoenas, or unexplained citing of executive priviledge? There are plenty of reasons for an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, and if it is, it should be pursued. I doubt it will happen -- but it should.
by
chowderhead (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, July 25, 2008 at 4:10:59 PM
4:10 Nadler points out that whereas evidence was nonexistant or disputed, Bush asserted repeatedly that it was absolutely certain. Lundgren claims that Bush based that on the wisdom of intelligence agencies around the world [sic!]. [Even if that were true, isn't it a problem that US intelligence was full of doubts and major counter-evidence?]
4:05 Lundgren claims Bush meant well. Nadler asks about evidence on edited NIE presented today. Lundgren dismisses it. Audience laughs. Lundgren asks for people to be removed. Conyers says that if anyone causes a disruption at the end of the hearing they will be forbidden to attend any more hearings.
3:58: Ellison is trying again to get Presser to agree there are grounds for impeachment on the matter of war lies. He agrees, only if Kucinich's case is "proved." Ellison asks Radkin too, but he pulls out the "they meant well and sadly turned out to be wrong, which is different from intentionally lying." I'd like Kucinich to make the overwhelming case that Bugliosi has been making that they knowingly lied, but he instead makes the reasonable case that if all the assertions turn out to be false that is sufficient grounds for an impeachment inquiry.
3:55: Ellison is giving Kucinich another opportunity to speak about his article of impeachment on war lies, which he is doing at some length. Lundgren is the only Republican member still here. Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, and Baldw
