Why Would Anyone Protest John Conyers?

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

John Conyers has a great quote in John Nichols' book "The Genius of Impeachment" (pointed out by attentive reader Gordon Bennett):

"I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act."

On the 5th Anniversary of the Downing Street Meeting and the same day as a Dem Prez candidates debate in the evening on CNN, Youtube, and Google, July 23, 2007, Cindy Sheehan plans to lead a delegation to Congressman John Conyers' office in DC to demand impeachment. Ray McGovern will be among those marching to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery (meeting there at 10 a.m.). Cindy and Ray were two of the four witnesses in Conyers' basement hearing on the Downing Street Minutes in June 2005.

This time, we've not been invited. We plan to sit and read the Constitution aloud. If necessary, we will face arrest.

This is part of a march that Cindy and others are making from Texas to New York. The march may make stops at the district offices of other House Judiciary Committee Members, such as Rick Boucher, Mel Watt, and Bobby Scott.

You can organize a meeting, protest, honk-a-thon, or sit-in at your Congress Member's office. One way to get organized is with this system. You can find events and create them here. And you can meet people in Facebook.

We need a nonviolent revolution to compel our Congress Members to revive our Constitution. Sitting in their offices and reading the Constitution out loud, if enough of us do it, may save our democracy.

Citizens are planning sit-ins the same day in several Congress Members' district offices, including Congressman Conyers' offices in Michigan.

Why Conyers?

Because he controls impeachment. We wouldn't want anyone else. He has the knowledge and skill to lead the way, and we hope his better half wins out. And we hope he doesn't arrest us for asking him to fulfill his oath of office.

Clearly at least half of Congressman Conyers wants to move on impeachment and wants public pressure to allow / compel him to do so. He wrote the best report on Bush and Cheney's crimes a year and a half ago. He has encouraged the movement for impeachment. But half of him, for whatever reason, is intent on blocking it.

A Tale of Two Conyers
By Congressman John Conyers

WHY did all manly gifts in Webster fail?
He wrote on Nature's grandest brow, For Sale.
--Emerson

PART I

In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

-- Congressman John Conyers, "The Constitution in Crisis", December 2005

PART II

As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances – which have been sorely lacking for the last six years – must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that is where I come out.

Having devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to detailing the many abuses of the Bush Administration, I firmly believe that we have brought these matters to the attention of the American people and the mainstream media, and that their verdict was reflected in the elections on November 7. I consider the now famous “basement hearings" and the issuance of my “Constitution in Crisis" Report to be among the watershed achievements of my more than forty years in Congress.

-- Congressman John Conyers, November 2006

We need the first John Conyers. There is no Republican majority blocking inquiries. There hasn't been for over half a year. Instead, Conyers is issuing subpoenas, and the White House is refusing to comply with them. The third article of impeachment passed by the Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon was for refusal to comply with subpoenas. Conyers served on that committee. He knows that publishing a report on Nixon would not have done the job.

Conyers knows that when he and his colleagues held Nixon accountable, the Democrats won the biggest victories in a generation at the next elections. Conyers knows that when they let Reagan go in order to focus on elections they proceeded to lose and create the Bush dynasty. Conyers knows where Congress' approval rating has gone these past six months. He knows what another year and a half of building the already overwhelming case for impeachment but not acting on it would do to the Democrats. He knows that pursuing impeachment and having it blocked in the Senate by Republicans would guarantee Democratic landslides. And he knows that it is morally disgusting to put partisan elections concerns ahead of saving our Constitution and reinstating the rule of law for the executive branch.

Why divide the Democrats? 80% of Democrats want Cheney impeached. What kind of divide is that? It would be 90% the day after Conyers began impeachment. Conyers knows there is no downside to impeachment. We need to provide the public pressure to allow him to act.

[Demeter]

1. If You Want Conyers, Go After Pelosi!

She's the roadblock on the road to Impeachment and the Restoration of the Constitution!

[davidswanson]

4. we're on it

and that's who cindy is running against

[calimary]

18. No reason why we can't lean on BOTH of them: Pelosi AND Conyers.

ARE they going to do the correct thing for country and Constitution, or just worry about the party? If that's all they care about, they're no better than the republi-CONS, who've put the interests of their own political party above ALL else.

[Vidar]

37. Bravo!

[Bitwit1234]

2. I think because he listens..

The probably think that he will pass on the information and try to act on it. Wasn't there an article posted on this board a week or so ago that Conyers was thinking of impeachment. And that was before they protested him.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Exactly what I was gonna say

[davidswanson]

6. he's been thinking

about it for at least 2 years

at some point it's time to act

[Usrename]

14. Most people don't recognize the danger.

This crowd will not go quietly. Unless they have their doppleganger replacements lined up and they just hurl Bush under the bus as a distraction. But what will that accomplish? It's a sketchy proposition to go after these guys in earnest. But at the same time, we're just about out of options.

[madrchsod]

3. conyers has to build a solid case for impeachment

since the republican party has vicks under their collective noses to block the stench pervades the whitehouse it`s going to take more before they have to admit that even vicks can not mask the smell of the rotting corpse of the bush whitehouse....

[davidswanson]

7. the case done been made

Their crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.

But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past six months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment.

[Usrename]

12. Oh yes, the case has already been made.

Does anyone doubt at all the treason and bribery in just the Libby debacle? This stuff really happened, and everyone knows it.

Even the kool-aide drinking, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Bush supporters won't come to anyone's rescue once the charges are made. They know it make them even more irrelevant to defend these monsters.

Good thoughts in the OP, too. Conyers may need some cover here, and a lot of it. Too many in the party leadership love this war and the whole Bush doctrine, including the tax-cuts and the raiding of the treasury. Yep, I said it, the monsters have powerful allies in our own party. Lieberman isn't unique at all, he's just been exposed is all.

[beaconess]

32. The case has been made to you, but not to most people

[Turn CO Blue]

17. There must be a very good reason that Conyers is concentrating

on the US attorney firings and the politicalization of the DOJ. These possible Contempt of Congress charges will, no doubt, be important and I personally don't want him distracted during this process.

I am hoping Conyers is putting energy into this because he believes that it is a STRAIGHTER shot (meaning a better case for) to impeachment of Cheney than the deception leading to the Iraq war.

And we can't impeach both (Bush AND Cheney). As I've posted elsewhere, since Pelosi is third in line - she can only impeach Cheney without appearing like she's trying to grab the US Presidency (coup d'etat).

===
tcb

[Hissyspit]

8. .

[rinsd]

9. Aaahh so you're dissing the one friend who matters for political theater

[Telly Savalas]

22. I'm pretty tired so I might be misreading the OP, but I don't see any signs of disrespect.

I appreciate the years of service of Rep. Conyers and think he's a good man and a good Democrat. However, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he's an appropriate person to target for protest by folks who want to see impeachment.

Outside of the Beltway, most Democrats and a sizable chunk of independents support impeachment. If the guy in charge of making it happen isn't representing us, then it's perfectly rational to protest his decision. Attacking his choice on this one issue isn't attacking the man, and protesting him need not be insulting him.

[Turn CO Blue]

10. Let Conyers and Leahy go after Miers for Contempt of Congress

let's do that first. Stop all these distractions.

The Honorable Conyers has held hearing after hearing after hearing since he got the Chair. He hasn't rested and he's been grabbing a mountain of evidence.

Conyers is not to blame here. So sophomoric.

[bonito]

11. I support both Cindy and John K&R

:thumbsup:

[Lord Helmet]

13. it's blind lashing out because of frustration

I share the feeling but wonder about the strategy.

[babylonsister]

15. K&R. Thank you. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Because they want him to impeach the president.

Why would Conyers have a problem with impeaching the president?

[mzmolly]

19. What about the War David?

Wasn't the goal to end the war not long ago? I fear that by taking the public focus of the war NOW, we are being counter productive to the goal of getting the troops home? Also, are you pressing to impeach Cheney or Bush or just "someone?"

I just want a feel for where your at with this, not trying to offend with my questions.

I thank you for your continued hard work for progressive causes.

PS my question is for the OP.

[davidswanson]

23. war?

is OP original poster? organic potato?

there is no war, there is an occupation and a threat of a new invasion. the only way to end the former and prevent the latter is impeachment, which was also necessary to end the Vietnam War. We've wasted over 6 months on avoiding impeachment while NOT ending the occupation.

[mzmolly]

30. So sorry, I didn't use the term "occupation."

"Occupation" isn't a relatable term which denotes death and destruction to ME personally. The term occupation doesn't sound like we're killing people, it sounds like we're standing around taking up space. However, I'm concerned about the "troops" regardless of how you choose label their adventure in Iraq.

With that out of the way ... I don't get how Impeachment ends the "occupation" without 2/3 of the Senate and the removal of both Bush and Cheney, do you? Though I do feel that the reports about Bush's last minute surge failure are bringing the R's on board to set a firm deadline for withdrawal. As you surely know yesterday the house (under Democratic Leadership) voted to start bringing home the troops in 120 days. So please THANK John Conyers for his vote in this regard while your "sitting" near him with impeachment signs.

Lastly, OP DOES = Original Poster, but if you prefer to be called a vegetable, that's cool too. ;)

Also, you did not answer my question about WHO you wish to impeach? Bush/Cheney or both?

Sorry, I don't wish to be rude, I feel you took offense to my question, and I did not mean it to offend. I'm just curious as to what our anti-war leaders see happening with their latest strategy is all.

[Turn CO Blue]

20. Impeachment does NOT equal end of war

Impeachment does not equal conviction.
Impeachment does not equal removal from office.
Impeachment does not equal jail time for Bush (or Cheney) even if they were convicted.

The focus should be on convincing Bush to end the war, not on harrassing John Conyers. Because impeachment does not equal the end of the war.

[rabies1]

29. Yeah but NOTHING is going to happen with these idiots still in office.

Talking to Bush about ending the war is like talking to a soap dish.
Talking to Cheney is like talking with the scrubby brush.

Bush and Cheney's hands will be tied somewhat with impeachment looming over their heads. Don't you think that for the sake of history, books should report that they were so bad that the citizens tried to impeach them. Shouldn't Bush be considered to be at least as bad as Nixon? I want it in the press - for other countries to see as well that we tried to get rid of this madman. It will help in our world standing. Yeh, we noticed and tried to do something about it.

Convince Bush to end the war? Then we can forget about dealing with global warming.
Convince Bush to do anything and you can forget about dealing with stem cell research, peace with Iran or any other country for that matter, healthcare, fair elections & voting machines, the dependency on oil, the attack on the middle class, war with Iraq, etc.

Cindy Sheehan is just pushing for some kind of action here. Enough has been said - 5 years later and we're still at war??? We have to do something to stop this insanity now because every day in office they try to ruin something. They are too dangerous for us.

[mzmolly]

31. Agreed. While I think that some should press for impeachment, I dont think

that it should be "anti-war" leaders. They're moving the goal posts and the goal seems more about vengeance than the troops at this point? While I understand the desire for justice, I think we need to have Cindy and those who are positioned against the war keep their eye on the ball?

[robinlynne]

21. I am hoping they are not protesting Conyers, but rather protesting with Conyers.

Sometimes showing our leaders that they have our backing helps them suitfy taking a stand. Not that Conyers needs any help. He is a modern day hero. But I would imagine they msut be doing it with the respect and gratitude he deserves.

[davidswanson]

24. yes

well said

[cassiepriam]

25. Because Americans are still murdering, torturing and maiming innocent Iraqis.

[Lars39]

26. The upside to this is that it might get Conyers air-time.

:bounce:

[EFerrari]

34. Yes! There really is no downside to this. n/t

[Perry Logan]

27. I'll bet impeachment would cause GWB's approval ratings to skyrocket.

Keep in mind, the news would report it totally their way. You'd hear all of the defense and none of the prosecution. The Democrats would be thugs picking on the guy who tried to protect us from terrorists, etc.

The Democrats are not hesitating on impeachment because they are cowards. They are hesitating because they know things you don't know.

[William769]

28. Same reason anyone would believe Faux news.

[mzmolly]

33. That sigline is amazing.

Wow! :hi:

[William769]

35. Thanks.

:hi:

[guruoo]

36. Cindy: "The Democrats are the party of slavery...

and were the party that started every war in the
20th Century except the other Bush debacle."

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1139