[Commentary added in brackets by David Swanson]
AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Conyers, it was interesting to see you at this major rally in Newark on Saturday. About more than a thousand people were there. It was the largest demonstration against war and violence at home for decades in Newark. Now, you spoke at the rally. Interestingly, people were there who had been arrested in your office, the forty-five in July who had been arrested because they were calling for you to continue to back the call for impeachment of President Bush. What is your response?
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, my response is that we have several things to do in -- I begin this part of our conversation by indicating that I have nothing but the highest regard for Cindy Sheehan. But the question of how we orchestrate moving a congressional schedule forward of accomplishments -- we’re pretty proud of what we’ve done in eight months after having no control over the agenda for twelve years. We also are trying to make sure that we don’t bring resolutions or hearings that would put the election in jeopardy. We could close down the Congress -- I have been in more impeachment hearings than anybody in the House or the Senate. And our legislative attempts to reverse so many things would come to a stop. And it is doubtful if we wouldn’t go into an election with not one, but at least two attempts to remove the top executive officers in the country, I don’t think that that can happen.
[Proud of 8 months of accomplishing...WHAT? Seriously, what? Put an election in jeopardy? Are you serious? With 80% of Democrats and 55% of Americans wanting impeachment before you even start? With the post-Nixon and post-Reagan election results known to you? With your own book in the stores arguing that the Constitution is in jeopardy? Legislative attempts to reverse things??? People don't want another 18 months of staged "attempts" while knowing that any good bill will be vetoed, and knowing that you know it, and knowing that you know that we know that you know it. You have 18 months. Nixon took 3. Clinton took 4 with a Senate trial included. Gonzales took only the threat.]
AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Conyers, on the issue of the warrantless wiretapping, on the one hand you’ve had the Democrats going after Gonzales fiercely for the Bush administration’s secret warrantless domestic surveillance program, yet signing off on the recent bill that the Bush administration had pushed for for further warrantless wiretapping.
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, the leadership was, of course, against the bill, and the majority of Democrats voted against the bill. But we’ve got this consideration: we’ve got 233 Democrats; forty of them are Blue Dogs, that is, conservative Democrats that frequently vote Republican. And then we have another group that are new to the Congress in their first term elected from red state congressional districts, which they felt that they would not be able to come back, and we couldn’t get them over. So we didn’t have all of our Democrats. It was not a solid position. But the leadership, Pelosi and I and Reyes, the head of the Intelligence Committee, we pleaded with everybody to vote with us in caucus, and we weren’t able to persuade some of the new members, and we weren’t able to persuade some of the Blue Dogs.
[Newsflash: If the leadership of the Congress is against a bill, it doesn't get brought up for a vote.]
AMY GOODMAN: Why would impeachment hearings put the election in jeopardy?
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, because unless I’ve got the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, so I’ve got any kind of hearings on removing both the President and the Vice President -- or putting it in reverse, remove the Vice President and then the President -- within the months remaining, would require 218 votes in the House of Representatives. That’s my calculator giving me this information. And then, in the Senate we need two-thirds to convict. Notwithstanding all of my progressive friends that would love to see me start impeachment hearings, those votes I do not think exist in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate.
[An attempt to impeach Cheney would save the Democratic Party. A successful impeachment of Cheney and of Bush, plus successfully removing them from office, is the ideal. Any step along the way would build the party, not to mention the nation, that Conyers says he is focused on building. No past impeachment has taken anything like 18 months. And these ones are already 9/10 done. Just read Conyers' book aloud and take a vote. No investigations are needed.]
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Congressman Conyers, if you weren’t holding your calculator, if you were just deciding whether impeachment was called for here, what would be the reasons you would list?
REP. JOHN CONYERS: What would be the reasons that I would what?
AMY GOODMAN: What would be the reasons you would list for impeachment, if you weren’t holding your calculator, just holding the Constitution?
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Oh, OK. Well, to me, we can accomplish probably as much as we would need to to make the record clear that there has been a great deal of violation of the sworn oath of office, abuses of power, through the hearings and inquiries that we can conduct. But it isn’t that -- and no one has ever heard me suggest that we don’t think that there is conduct that could be proven to be impeachable.
But when Ron Dellums and Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug and William Fitts Ryan of New York, when we -- Parren Mitchell -- when we introduced an impeachment resolution, the first one against a sitting president in over seventy-five years, when Richard Nixon was being investigated, it was at the beginning of his term. And although he had been overwhelmingly reelected, there was time for us to have the hearing. This -- the timing of an administration which will go down in history as probably one of the most disappointing, there isn’t the time here for it.
[Nixon left office exactly three months after your committee took up impeachment. Pretending you need 4 years is an insult to us and to the authors of the Constitution. You've wasted 8 months already. Let's get going! Moving to impeach Gonzales helped force him out. Promising not to impeach Cheney or Bush authorizes them to commit crimes. The usual excuses about not enough time and too divisive etc. don't hold up because many Congress Members were willing to do it with Gonzales. In fact 20 are ready to impeach Cheney, including 6 members of the Judiciary Committee. 80% of Dems want impeachment. Even an unsuccessful effort would do more for the Democratic Party than failure to try.]
1 | 2
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
IMPEACH NOW
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
| 6 comments |
|
|
Bottom line is that Conyers and the rest of them are supporting torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and tyranny. They are liars, traitors, oath-breakers, and gangsters. We know this by what they have done and what they have not done. All the rest -- what they say -- is meaningless. They are criminals. by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 12:47:48 PM
|
|
Excuses This is an excerpt from an email I received just this morning from my congressman Collin Peterson explaining why he refuses to sign on to HR333 and support impeachment. “If concrete evidence of the sort that would warrant impeachment comes to light I would expect Congress to start down that path. However, many Members of Congress, myself included, are concerned that an effort to impeach that is based on anything less than the "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the Constitution would be construed to be politically motivated, and that's something this country absolutely does not need right now.” I guess it will take something like murder in the Oval Office to get these useless supposed Democrats to quit covering their collective asses and do what they have sworn to do in protecting the Constitution. by
walley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 2:04:58 PM
|
|
Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law. |
Something like murder... even might not be enough. Laws aren't self prosecuting - if a culture of lawlessness gets too much support because no one takes action to enforce the law then even the law abiders start to feel like mugs for missing out in both the short term and the long term. Who wants to be the only responsible representative when all the others are breaking their oaths? And if the people aren't punishing oathbreaking then why would representatives see a need to keep their promises to their constitents - all they need do is fob off a majority of them with some delaying tactic or rationalisation and that majority will override (out shout, out vote) the minority that want the particular promise kept. Re the response from your representative - thanks for posting that, it at least, as does the article, shows where the minds of the folks (Conyers and your congressman) are. We have to know that in order to have even a chance to do something about it. Shared information helps break down the work load. The rebuttals are actually intellectually easy, but democracy means that intellectual arguments have to be popularly made as well - and accountabilty has to be sought and most people don't like getting prosecutorial on other people - but when others are defaulting there is really no choice as non correction or objection is effectively taken as assent. My questions : How does Conyers reconcile to himself and his wife (an impeachment supporter too) that he took a PERSONAL oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic - does he think writing a book before becoming chair of the judiciary committee was enough and that now he can resign? I understand the mathematics of what he is saying with respect to the blue dogs and the new representatives and the numbers that would be needed to be persuaded in the senate, but the mathematics changes when people get more information and see more character. Battles get lost when the good guys beside one start to give up and retreat, Conyers as a chair of the judiciary committee is one of the main banner carriers for the side of justice (or at least a pretender to that) and he keeps calling "fallback, retreat, fallback, we will make our stand on the edge of the precipice, or at the edge of the river, or in the water." Put the calculator AWAY John Conyers and listen to your conscience or at least hand the banner of justice - the Chair of the Judicial Committee to someone that is less keen on retreating - it is bad for morale. The banner needs to go forward. If you can't hold it up then pass it on. Nancy is using her banner as a table clothe. Move forward with impeachment and the people will go forward with you. The cause is just. The Constitution is the basis of the argument. Republicans are not anti-constitution. Character always matters. And so what if Congress IS closed down? You think impeachment should be easy? Did the founders of the country face lesser challenges? If you surrender the sort of government that your Constitution gives you because you haven't the character to breathe life into it anymore then the terrorists have won because you have surrendered - and America is a myth and a falsehood and the world will have to start again to create something real. by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:42:45 AM
|
|
|
Excuses Failing to begin impeachment proceedings will "be construed" by the American public as approving of the crimes. And they will be right. by
JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 4:15:33 PM
|
|
Bill Cain is a professional travel photo-journalist who writes primarily for the Concord Monitor in Concord, New Hampshire. He's visited all seven continents, countless countries and his travel experiences have contributed to and are reflected in his world views. |
Excuses Jellyfish! Nothing but 435 spineless jellyfish! by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 5:51:34 PM
|
|
I host the website TroubledTexan.com and the weblog Troubled Texan Blog. As long as there's crooked politicians there'll be a Troubled Texan. |
"Rep. Conyers' Latest Excuses" Howdy, I must ask everyone here, who got suckered into buying Conyer's "What Went Wrong In Ohio", autoghraphed addition? I know I did. Now, Pelosi and Conyers has taken impeachment off the table. Was that what I voted for in the 2006 election? Hell No! Pelosi and Conyers have no hope of winning the next election cycle! Send these wanna bee's packing! Troubled Texan by
TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments)
on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 8:19:55 PM
|
| 6 comments |
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
