Continuing Battle with Conyers' Office on Impeachment By Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA
On January 25th, I had a telephone conversation (40 mins +) with a legislative assistant in Conyers' office regarding impeachment. He had obviously been well-instructed on how to express their current policy. Our conversation included both Bush and Cheney, and took some strange turns, but this is basically the stand they're taking:
* Impeachment's not necessary. The next election will take care of EVERYTHING. Just ELECT DEMOCRATS. (This chorus was repeated throughout our discussion.)
* A sitting President is not subject to court actions. Nothing in the Constitution says a President is subject to the law. He finally conceded this remains an "unsettle" question in the courts. (I insisted on documentation to support his statements, and he emailed me a Congressional report, 1978 "CRS Report for Congress" #98-186 A, on impeachment, about 30 pgs.)
* Congress does not have an OBLIGATION or duty to investigate or take any action to prevent a President from breaking the law or abusing his powers. It's totally up to THEIR DISCRETION.
* It's okay for their decision to be based on party politics rather than Constitutional considerations because the decision is solely theirs to make.
* The courts can follow up with any illegal acts of the President or Vice-President AFTER they're out of office, and all will be fine.
* Correcting power-abuse really has no meaning because power is what it's all about. They all abuse it. So what? It's just politics.
We both agreed that according to what he was telling me, it boils down to the following:
A sitting President is not subject to the law as long as he remains in office. He can CONTINUE to break laws as long as he remains in office. He can only be removed DURING his term of office (and therefore become subject to the law) through impeachment. Only Congress can impeach, and it's solely up to their DISCRETION. So, as long as Congress successfully blocks the impeachment process, they are willfully allowing the President to remain completely outside the law, condoning that principle, and, in effect, shielding him from being removed from office so that he will be subject to the law and can be prosecuted. Congress has no OBLIGATION to intervene.
The aide seemed not the least bit disturbed by the gravity or import of my conclusions. It is, after all, just politics. And, by the way, electing Democrats to office will take care of everything (just in case I forgot to mention that).
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: IMPEACH
In essence what I'm hearing is we the people don't matter. Congress and the Executive branch are separate entities divorced from having anything to do with the wishes of the people they're suppose to represent.
The people want impeachment but so what? Who the hell are we? It's up to the "we know better than you" discretion of those charged with up-holding the law of the land whether they want to abide by their oath to the Constitution or not and piss on us.
And who is to say that anyone will be held accountable or things will get better after election 08'? Are we to believe after they have just told us that everything is about control and power that they wouldn't continue the abuses? And who is to say that it's a forgone conclusion more Democratic congressman, senators or for that matter president will be elected after we've seen that past two questionable presidential elections? Who is to say that within this next year this "king" Conyers has anointed won't allow another "false flag" attack, bombed Iran, declare Marshall Law and suspend elections for "national security" reasons?
And for those that say this can't happen I contour that we've watched the thief of two presidential elections, murder of 3,000 citizens, illegal invasion of two sovereign countries, murder of Sen. Wellstone, Anthrax attacks to those that would dare question this administration, our own CIA agent outed, gagging of Sibel Edmonds, illegal wire-tapping, 11,000 signing statements reversing legislated laws, abuse of presidential dictates, torture, rape, secret prisons, destruction of our Constitution and Bills of Rights, war-profiteering, destruction of an American city, gutting of our treasury, investigations exposing crimes that never get indicted, subpoenas ignored, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice and much more with no one held accountable!
Every time I read something like this it just confirms my worst suspicions. That some time ago the citizens of this country have been regulated to no more than an audience. Spectators to a vast criminal organization barely disguised as a functioning government.
I'm firmly convinced that another corrupt election won't solve the problems now entrenched in this farce of a government. That we need a Bastille Day to rid ourselves of officials who don't listen to us and have infested this government from top to bottom. Gut this system to the core and put coporations in there proper place and put people back as the number one concern.
To say that a sitting president is above the law of the land is to place a king at our helm. We once fought to rid ourselves of such tyranny, that time may have well arrived once again.
"The tree of liberty must for time to time be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1254 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 11:13:15 AM
Ahhh yes! The "Elective Despotism Theory" of how and why Presidents who are bound to "faithfully execute the laws of the land” cannot be held accountable by “the rule of law” or by the people they garner their privilege from, unless they are involved in an act of infidelity while in office, of course. Otherwise known, in its more euphemistic Bush form, as the "Unitary Executive Theory."
Amusing how political expedience changed Conyers’ mind after he and his staff spent six month preparing “The Constitution in Crisis”, which documents all of the abuses and impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. The question becomes, “why bother at all?”
Need I remind the Congressman what James Madison said in Federalist Paper No. 88;
“An elective despotism, was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others”
Conyers is an embarrassment to the American people, progressives, and his abdication of his constitutional duties is tantamount to treason. Yes, Congressman Conyers, if you read this, I find your lack of action seditious and cowardly.
I wonder what Conyers will do when John McCain is elected President?
Plan “B”, anyone…Bueller…anyone…Conyers?
by
Frank J. Ranelli (63 articles, 143 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 364 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 2:20:55 PM
I have more bad news. Specifically, I corresponded with the leading constitutional law expert in the U.S. I asked him if there was any way to impeach, remove, recall or otherwise get rid of congress people who were acting contrary to their duty and the will of the American people by refusing to impeach when there are clear grounds.
He responded unequivocally "no".
To be clear, I was not asking im about congress itself removing one of their own. I was asking if the people could remove a congress member or senator.
by
George Washington (67 articles, 18 quicklinks, 138 diaries, 180 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 2:34:26 PM
I seem to have a recurring fantasy about performing a terrorist act on Congress when they're all together during the "State of the Union" address. Otherwise known as, 'applaud the Boy King criminal scum bag moron'...
How CAN They? How can they applaud that disaster of a stolen presidency??
by
Dawn Owens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM
Criminal proceedings do. I know it is hard to fathom, but is this the tactic? Impeachment removes them from office, and I have signed all the petitions, and written columns in my local paper calling for impeachment, but impeachment does not lead to a prison cell. If Democrats sweep in Nov. (assuming we don't have another false flag attack before then and still have elections) and THEN nothing happens we are very likely, well, doomed. If Conyers or Leahy are what we hope them to be, I think we will see indictments. There is the case to be made that these leaders are useless, and all is lost, but if that is not the case, I think we can hope for indictments.
Does this mean shut up? Absolutely not. I will keep asking for impeachment, I will continue to keep the pressure on. I will continue speaking the truth to power. But unless the democrats are as totally useless as they seem to be with their inaction to hold these criminals accoutable, and all is lost, that must be the alternative. That can only be indictments. The half of the country that has cried out for justice these seven years would lose ALL faith in the democrats, in the whole political process, if the outcome is any different. Then, all will be lost. I hope for indictments tomorrow, if we can't have impeachment today.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:13:51 PM
it is unlikely that a court would allow high-level officials such as a sitting president or vice president to be tried until they leave office after the end of their designated term or through impeachment and removal. This is because the constitutional "separation of powers" doctrine provides that one branch of government, such as the judiciary, cannot unduly interfere with the workings of another branch, such as the executive branch. It is clear that, pursuant to federal statutes, a sitting president cannot be tried criminally, although it has not been decided whether the president can be indicted (the first step in the criminal process) while in office or whether the vice president has the same protections as the president. Thus, even if a court did not dismiss a lawsuit outright on sovereign immunity grounds, it would almost certainly stay (i.e. pause) any lawsuit against the president and vice president
by
George Washington (67 articles, 18 quicklinks, 138 diaries, 180 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:21:59 PM
The indictments I mean would take place after they left office, not while in office. I agree with what you say about sovereign immunity. This is one interpretation of why Conyers et al "appear" to be doing nothing. They certainly are not going to broadcast such a plan if that is what they have in mind.
BTW, I have visited your blog many times and commend you on it. Excellent work.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:35:30 PM
we are on the same page about inability to prosecute criminally while in office.
Where I disagree 100% with Conyers, Pelosi and others who are against impeachment is that first impeach and then either:
(1) remove (a second - totally separate step after impeachment), in which case they are out of office and CAN be tried criminally; or
(2) As Rob Kall has brilliantly suggested, RUN OUT THE CLOCK so that the neocons can't do a bunch of new illegal acts before 2009. I wholly disagree with even very smart people who say if you impeach, they'll nuke Iran or implement iron-fisted fascism. On the contrary, I agree with constitutuional expert Bruce Fein who says that showing congress is keeping any eye on the executive will back them down.
[and thanks for your kind words about my blog] .
by
George Washington (67 articles, 18 quicklinks, 138 diaries, 180 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 4:16:22 PM
Clinton went to trial in the Senate and was not convicted. That is why he remained in office.
The problem with trying to convict anyone in this administration after their terms end is that the courts are now well-packed with Bush-appointed judges, particularly at the federal appeals courts. There may be better opportunities for trial internationally on war crimes charges.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 284 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 3:01:59 PM
The immunity given officials in the MCA appears to be just such an insurance policy against what could happen once a shift in power takes place. The their backs against a wall, I fear they will not go so lightly into the night, and hand power over. Another attack under false pretenses, national emergency, cancelled elections "until the nation is secure..." is another form of immunity, but the crooks themselves seem by the immunity in the MCA and other legislation, I'm sure, is forward looking on their part. Are the democrats waiting until they can get these people out of office to spring a trap? It is one interpretation to the apparent inaction.
by
Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 181 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:47:25 PM
Passage of the Military Commissions Act appears to infer that those protected by this act know they did something illegal. Why else would they need protection?
The very protections themselves are an indictment.
by
martinweiss (16 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 308 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 4:34:52 PM
now I am fully justified in ignoring the Democratic party
I worked hard in '06 to get Dems elected to Congress for the express reason that a Dem majority would end the war and impeach. Now that its obvious that neither is going to happen, I am totally finished with the Democratic party. Unless Hillary or Obama point blank declare their intention to end the war immediately and express support for impeachment, I will support Dr. Ron Paul to the end. Although he doesn't publicly support impeachment, his position on the war is unmatched by anyone on the Dem side. And in addition, because he is a strict Constitutionalist, I have every reason to believe his presidency would overturn and roll back the legacy of our once and future king. I don't see anything from Obama or Clinton that comes close to his position regarding the need to get back to our Constitutional roots.
by
sunnyjim (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:58:52 PM
Ron Paul tabled Kucinich impeachment because it was unfortunately attacking symptoms and not the problem which was indicated by the neocons voting yes. Why would neocons vote yes? Twenty days after the impeachment vote Kucinich made the statement about Paul being a VP...
Both should be impoeached and they shou;ld be impeached, not a a political game, "let's take out cheney for political reasons first" but they should be JUSTLY removed, and that is not what Dennis was offering.
Ron Paul would support an impeachment based on truth and justice and that would be an impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney and a number of others...but also...Congress had Bush go to the UN to get a resolution...this is an illegal wat because Bush went to the UN...he did not declare war, this is a UN conflict in our name and why the Democrats won't go anywhere.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 7:00:40 PM
You have to vote for someone. To shake your head and refuse to vote at all only means that others will decide for you who the next office holders will be. You will be just as guilty of whatever actions the next President takes by not voting against him/her as you would be if you voted for him/her. It is better to make a statement and vote for anyone other than the Democrats or Republicans, even if you vote for the Communists, Nazis, Libertarians, or Anarchists than not to vote at all.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 10:50:21 PM
That's probably what John Adams had in mind when he said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other", or something like that.
IOW, the Constitution is really nothing more than a set of "guidelines" that morally competent people can use to implement good government.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 450 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 6:14:00 PM
a) "Discretion" is bullshit because their oath of office is to "uphold, protect and defend the Constitution". Given all that has happened and continues to, nothing more need be said.
b) Any time we as a nation/individual *ask* a Congressperson what *their* position is about Anything, we are handing them power which doesn't belong to them. Which doesn't mean that we are at fault for their thirst for power, but we surely are helping it along with our attitude. It's time to turn the tables:
They took an oath of office which We, the People, the forgotten FIRST branch of government, PAY them to do. We are their employers: We've got to remind them that their *job* is to implement the public will or get out. It's most certainly not about them and their "discretion" ie their whims.
C) There is a sure-fire way to unseat Congressmembers which has been proven:
~Create a scandal and they drop like flies. We the People can help, with letters to the editor. If organized enough, nation-wide, with everybody participating, it will work. (Nasty eh? I hate it. HATE it!! Don't get me wrong. But sometimes we have to use the distasteful for the cause of the general good, if that's the only tool we have).
~Boycott. The corporations which are funding your individual law-demolishing Congressperson. Find out who is backing them financially, organize boycotts and exposees, and bingo! THey'll get the message, sure enough.
~Run for Congress. Sound insane? Well hey, Old Abe had no education yet became a lawyer and then President. If he could do it, why not you? Pruning Sheers and Clean Sweep are entities based on just this idea. Challenge Congressional seats with campaigns, and you've got them out of office if enough people are challenging that same seat.
So that attorney who said there is no way to unseat Congresspeople is wrong.
Use the letters to the editor. They are our tool. So is the Internet and so is e-mail. We've got it made, if we *all* and *without exception* step up to the plate. Don't forget: Congresspeople want to be re-elected! No they will not honor the voice of one person or a large group, but yes they will honor the voices of the millions. The ten thousand mile journey begins with one step, but fortunately for us the power of the Internet is exponential: Here we go!
by
Kathryn Smith (88 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 342 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:12:10 AM
Didn't we hear in the election campaign of 2006 that we should elect Democrats? Isn't that what happened? And now we hear a Democratic committee chairman's representative say, "we don't need to do anything". "the 2008 election will take care of the problem", and" elect Democrats". Whoa---why would an average citizen think that is a good idea considering the results of the 2006 election? Impeachment is necessary, not because it will impeach Bush/Cheney, but, IT WILL PROVIDE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE DASTARDLY DEEDS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THIS WILL PROVIDE THE DEMOCRATS WITH THE CHANCE OF CRUSHING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INTO ALMOST NONEXISTENCE AS THE ELECTIONS OF 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 ETC. PROCEED. The goal is to win elections, stupid. Got that?
by
paganbaby (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM
It states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It sounds like to me, that the people have the say and not the government. Isn't the government suppose to serve us. We have totally allowed our government to dictate what they want and not what the American people want. It is time for Americans to take back America. If we don't, we will have lost all hope for a free country.
by
Rick Theile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 1:21:26 PM
There couldn't be a better example of poetic justice! In the very same issue of OpEdNews in which its editor, Rob Kall, tells us not to let our reptilian brains impel us to lash out in anger and refuse to vote for the Democrats, we have this article showing how much progress voting the Democrats back in control of Congress got us. And one of the comments was by someone who tells us how he supported the Democrats in the hope of impeachment but will no longer vote for them.
WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. I agree with the commenters who said we need a revolution. But if a third party is elected and the ruling class refuses to recognize the results of the election, that will help the majority of the people realize we need a revolution. The Green Party is still the largest third party around and is thus best positioned to be the vehicle for a mass break out from the two party duopoly.
So, unless the Green Party nominates another candidate like David Cobb with a covert lesser evil, safe states strategy of not making a serious attempt to campaign in states where he perceives a "danger" of throwing the election to the Republicans, vote for us. If we are unable to remove the demogreens from control of our party, it will still be necessary to buckle down to the task of building a viable third party other than the Greens, since the only alternative is the same sorry performance on impeachment with which John Conyers has rewarded peoples hard work in electng the Democrats back in control of Congress!
We are left with varied impressions after Conyer's statements. One impression is that Conyers knows the democrats cannot muster up necessary votes from republicans to impeach. We also have to guess that there may be the old "honor among thieves" attitude coming from Conyers (which would be very sad.) Then there is this thought: Is it possible that Conyers is treading water on the act of impeachment in order to legally go after Bush when he leaves office?
If impeachment is off the table and the democrats DO NOT pursue Bush and Cheney after they leave office for all the laws they have broken, then we can pretty much surmise that justice in the United States of America only applies to its citizens. We will have definitely lost our country to elite fascits.
by
c. linman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 9:24:50 AM
If anyone who values the principals of the US constitution are going to do anything to restore the rule of law, they have only one week left in which to do it. The puzzle peices are all in place now. Internet. False flag. Middle East. Government continuity. labor lottery. Free market capitalism will one day be considered outdated and unsustainable just like communism. All resources on our world are finite and those that control them know it.
by
erik mouse (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 97 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM
